2008 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 15(4):497–514
Use of Residual Forest by Snowshoe Hare in a Clear-cut
Boreal Landscape
Martin-Hugues St-Laurent1,*, Marianne Cusson1, Jean Ferron1,
and Alain Caron1
Abstract - The short-term negative impacts on Lepus americanus (Snowshoe Hare)
of logging activities in boreal forest are widely recognized, and conservation efforts
are being taken now in designing residual forest stands to maintain use of logged landscapes
by hares. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three types of residual
stands in maintaining hares during the high phase of hare density cycle in Picea mariana
(Black Spruce) forest of eastern Canada. Residual forest stands sampled were
upland strips (60 m wide, 250–950 m long, mesic conditions), riparian strips (100 m
wide, 250–950 m long, along a permanent stream), and residual blocks
(200–300 m wide, 20–50 ha). Control stands were undisturbed forest. All stands were
considered mature (56–97 years old). Pellet and browse surveys were conducted during
spring 1998 and 1999. Hare abundance indices were significantly lower (1999), or
tended to be lower (1998), in strips than in blocks, although habitat composition and
structure of the treatments did not differ from control stands. Pellet presence was positively
related to vertical cover. In 1998, foraging activity (browsing) was significantly
higher in control and block landscapes than in strip landscapes; browsing was positively
related to availability of ericaceous and deciduous twigs. In 1998, twenty
Snowshoe Hares were radio-tracked in residual stands to monitor their summer home
ranges, fidelity to capture sites and to type of residual stand, use of clear-cuts and uncut
forest, and daily movements. There was a clear trend towards lower fidelity to
strips than to blocks, and summer home ranges and daily movements (>330 m) tended
to be larger in strips compared to those in blocks. Our study suggests that up to 5 years
after logging, residual forest blocks appeared to be more suitable habitat in summer
for Snowshoe Hare than were 60-m-wide strips.
Introduction
Forest harvesting is known to be the major source of disturbance in
the boreal forest (McRae et al. 2001). Consequently, several studies and
review papers have documented the effects of logging and fragmentation
on wildlife (Betts et al. 2006, Potvin et al. 1999, St-Laurent et al. 2007,
Thompson 1988). According to the coarse-filter approach (Hunter et al.
1988), preserving the optimal habitat of major prey species can insure the
maintenance of a predator guild higher in the food chain. In the boreal forest,
Lepus americanus Erxleben (Snowshoe Hare) is considered a keystone
species due to its significant impact both on vegetation and predators (Krebs
et al. 2001a, Murray 2003). Although several studies have documented the
1Département de Biologie, Chimie, et Géographie, Université du Québec à Rimouski,
300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, QC, Canada, G5L 3A1. *Corresponding author -
martin-hugues_st-laurent@uqar.ca.
498 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
effects of large-scale commercial clear-cutting on hares (e.g., Conroy et
al. 1979; Ferron et al. 1998; Monthey 1986; Potvin et al. 2005a, b), little
attention has been paid to Snowshoe Hare response to residual forest configurations following logging (Darveau et al. 1998, St-Laurent et al. 2007).
Recent studies conducted in the Picea mariana Mill. (Black Spruce) forest
of Abitibi-Témiscamingue (Québec, Canada) revealed that hares do not
recolonize clear-cuts prior to 4 years after logging (Ferron et al. 1998), and
that pre-logging densities were only half recovered after ten years (Potvin
et al. 2005a). Indeed, Snowshoe Hares rarely used regenerating stands in
boreal forests before 8–10 years following clear-cut logging (de Bellefeuille
et al. 2001, Thompson 1988). Although young successional stages are known
to be preferred by Snowshoe Hare (St-Laurent et al. 2008), residual forest
stands (i.e., stands of mature forest remaining in the landscape) with dense
understory are essential to maintain hare populations in a landscape after
logging (Potvin et al. 1999). As cover density is a major habitat component
for hares (Brocke 1975, Ferron and Ouellet 1992, Murray 2003), they will
concentrate their activities in residual forest and leave logged landscapes
shortly after clear-cutting. For hares, undisturbed and residual mature forests
may facilitate landscape recolonization after logging (Ferron et al. 1998),
and minimize the short-term negative effects of logging by maintaining
source populations in the landscape (Potvin and Bertrand 2004).
Among eastern Canadian provinces, current logging regulations generate
a great diversity of shapes and sizes of residual forest configurations
(see McRae et al. 2001). However, few studies have documented Snowshoe
Hare use of residual forest stands in comparison to mature continuous forest.
Linear forest strips and island-like blocks are two common residual forest
stands found in logged landscapes (Potvin and Courtois 2007). These types
of residual forest stands differ by their mean size and width (strips < blocks)
and their edge-to-area ratio (strips > blocks). Both residual blocks and strips
are authorized currently on public lands in Québec to limit the size of clearcut
patches (Québec Government 1996). Strips can be 60 or 100 m wide,
depending on the size of adjacent clear-cuts. Strips are either riparian (along a
permanent stream) or upland (mesic conditions) and are linked to larger undisturbed
mature forest (see Fig. 1a in Ferron and St-Laurent 2005). In contrast,
residual blocks between 20 and 50 ha were authorized as an experimental
treatment at the beginning of this study. Darveau et al. (1998) studied riparian
strip use by hares in Abies balsamea Mill. (Balsam Fir) forest and found that
all riparian strips, ranging in width between 20 to 300 m, supported comparable
low hare densities. In winter, Potvin et al. (2005b) demonstrated that hares
avoided strip edges and were more common in wider strips (>100 m). Surprisingly,
the effectiveness of upland strips and residual blocks in maintaining
Snowshoe Hare in a logged landscape has not been tested.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of riparian
strips, upland strips, and residual blocks in maintaining use of logged
landscapes by hares in boreal Black Spruce forest. We hypothesized that re2008
M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 499
sidual block configuration would be more suitable to Snowshoe Hares than
smaller residual forest stands (riparian and upland strips). Residual blocks
have less edge and offer more interior forest, thus providing a better refuge
for hares. This hypothesis is based on the observations of Potvin et al. (2005b)
that forest clear-cut edges are avoided by Snowshoe Hares in winter.
Field Site Description
This study was conducted in the Black Spruce-moss boreal forest northwest
of Lake St. Jean, central Québec, Canada (49°09'N, 72°57'W). The
study area was located at the northern limit of the Balsam Fir-Betula papyrifera
Marsh. (White Birch) ecological region (Thibault 1985). The annual
mean air temperature ranged between -2.5 and 0 °C, while the total
annual precipitation varied between 90 and 110 cm, a third of which fell as
snow (Environment Canada 1993). The area had a mean elevation of
330 m. At the time of data collection (1998–1999), about 40% of the 60-
km2 study area had been clear-cut since 1994 using the CPRS technique
(cutting with protection of regeneration and soils), a modified clear-cutting
technique requiring that harvesting and skidding trails be equally spaced by
10–15 m (Potvin et al. 2005b). Among remaining forest, 32% was distributed
as residual forest stands (i.e., upland strips, riparian strips, or residual
blocks). Mature Black Spruce stands (90 years old) dominated over the
landscape, but Pinus banksiana Lamb. (Jack Pine), Balsam Fir, Larix
laricina Koch (Tamarack), White Birch, and Populus tremuloides Michx.
(Trembling Aspen) were also present in the area. The understory was composed
of primarily Kalmia angustifolia Linnaeus (Sheep Laurel) and
Ledum groenlandicum Oeder (Labrador Tea), with Alnus spp. (alders)
along streams. Eighteen sites were randomly selected within the study area,
and included 5 upland strips, 5 riparian strips, 3 residual blocks and 5 controls.
Sites were all crown land dominated by mature Black Spruce forest
(mean stand age = 89 ± 23 years, ranging from 56 to 97 years old) that was
not previously harvested. Upland and riparian strips were approximately
60–100 m wide and varied in area from 1.7 to 6.9 ha. They also varied in
length from 250 to 960 m and were all connected to contiguous forest. Residual
blocks were portions of forest from 18.2 to 49.7 ha, ranging in width
from 200 to 300 m. Control sites ranged between 22.2 and 46.4 ha and were
located in larger patches of continuous mature forest, distanced by at least
500 m to the closest clear-cut edge to limit possible edge effects (St-Laurent
et al. 2007). All sites were >1 km apart to avoid pseudoreplication. At
the beginning of the experiment, study sites had been isolated for 1–3 years
post-clear-cutting and their use by hares was monitored in 1998 and 1999.
Concerning Snowshoe Hare populations on a regional scale, our study
area was considered to be representative of a much larger area (20,000 km2)
(Potvin et al. 2005b) within the spruce-moss ecological region (Thibault
1985). In the Lake St. Jean region, Snowshoe Hare is known to exhibit a
density cycle (Godbout 1998), with a periodicity of ≈10 years but of lower
500 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
amplitude than in northwestern Canada (Ferron and St-Laurent 2008). Data
collection was conducted during the high phase of this cycle (1998–1999).
Methods
We compared hare use of riparian strips, upland strips, and residual
blocks to continuous mature forest (as a control) using pellet counts and
browse surveys, and radio-tracking data for home ranges, daily movements,
and fidelity to capture sites, 1 to 5 years after logging.
Pellet and browse surveys
To evaluate relative use of the different residual forest stand types by
Snowshoe Hare, pellet and browse surveys were conducted (as abundance
indices) during spring 1998 and 1999 at all the studied stands. Dependent on
stand size and type, 15–24 plots/site were distributed on 3–7 parallel survey
lines. Survey lines were 50 m apart in residual blocks and controls and 100
m apart in strips. Each plot was a 1-m radius (3.14-m2) circle identified with
a permanent stake in the center (St-Laurent et al. 2007, 2008). We used 1-m
radius circular plots rather than rectangular plots or small circular plots
(0.155 m2) to increase likelihood of recording fecal pellets for low hare densities
(Murray et al. 2002). Fecal pellets were counted and removed shortly
after snow-melt before the onset of green-up (Ferron et al. 1998; Krebs et
al. 1987, 2001b). We excluded the first year of pellet counts (1997) because
it may have included some pellets older than 1 year (Murray et al. 2005).
Although pellet decomposition rate influences the precision of pellet counts
(Murray et al. 2005), we did not correct our estimates because the annual
degradation rate of hare fecal pellets is relatively low (approximately 8%)
near our study area (M.-H. St-Laurent, unpubl. data). Pellet abundances were
transformed to presence/absence to conduct statistical analyses. Moreover,
pellet counts were conducted on a 1-year interval basis; such a short and
regular interval is considered to minimize bias related to pellet decomposition
(Murray et al. 2005).
A browse survey was conducted yearly in spring 1998 and 1999 on the
same 1-m radius plots. All stems >1 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) and
all twigs (the last terminal or lateral division of a stem, >10 cm long [Hosie
1972, Potvin 1995]) <2 m above ground, were identified to species, counted,
and used to establish the relative availability of each species (Potvin 1995).
Browsing was transformed to presence/absence data. Differentiation of
browsing between hare and ungulates was done using the aspect of cut twigs
(sharply cut = hares, shredded = ungulates; Potvin 1995). The relative availability,
use by hares. and importance (in %) of each species in the hare diet
were calculated (following Potvin’s [1995] methods).
Lateral and vertical vegetation covers were evaluated on each plot as
indices of anti-predatory cover for hares. Lateral cover (foliage density estimated
in five density classes, from low obstruction [10%] to almost complete
obstruction by vegetation [90%]) of the understory was measured with a 2-m
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 501
vegetation profile board (Nudds 1977) placed at two points 15 m distant from
the center of the plot, and perpendicular to the survey line. Vertical cover
density (canopy closure) was measured at the center of each plot through
a 50-cm square frame held at arm’s length above the head (Benz 2000; St-
Laurent et al. 2007, 2008), using the same density classes as for lateral cover.
Although foliage was primarily coniferous, both lateral and vertical covers
were measured before green-up to represent hiding cover during the majority
of the year.
Telemetry
In 1998, 20 hares were radio-tracked (Holohil System, model MI-2 with
mortality sensor) from mid-May to mid-August to monitor home ranges,
fidelity to capture site (i.e., proportion of locations in the study site where
captured), fidelity to the type of residual stand where captured (i.e., proportion
of locations in the same type of residual stand as capture site: upland
strip, riparian strip, or residual block), use of clear-cuts and surrounding uncut
forest (except residual stands), and daily movements. In mixed forest stands,
Brocke (1975) reported that only 5% of Snowshoe Hare daily movements
were >330 m. We analysed daily movements >330 m and hypothesized that
hares in poorer habitats (such as a Black Spruce stand) or in small residual
forest fragments (such as a forest strip) would have a higherproportion of
daily movements beyond 330 m than would have in a better habitat and/or
a larger residual forest stand. All animals were located 5 times per week by
homing technique, where we approached at close range (<10 m) until the
strength or direction of the signal indicated that the animal had just moved,
or by direct observation of the animal (White and Garrott 1990). Each location
was georeferenced with a global positioning system (GPS). Locations
were distributed evenly between dawn and dusk to encompass resting and
activity periods (Ferron and Ouellet 1992). Eight animals died from predation;
as sample size was limited, no survival analyses were done.
Data analyses
Due to very low hare density in our study area (Appendix 1), we used
presence/absence of fecal pellets and browsing as indices of habitat use by
hare. Using presence/absence data to determine occupancy rate rather than
absolute abundance can limit ambiguous interpretation and may lead to more
conservative conclusions about habitat use (MacKenzie 2005) through proportion
of sites used by a given species (Zielinski and Stauffer 1996). This
is especially true when mean abundances are very low, and high values in
some plots can mask the absence of pellets (or browsing) (Stanley and Royle
2005). This approach was used to study other aspects of hare reactions to
managed landscapes in the boreal forest of eastern Canada (St-Laurent et
al. 2007, 2008). We constructed a logistic regression model (Hosmer and
Lemeshow 1989) to relate the presence of fecal pellets with treatments
(upland strips, riparian strips, residual blocks, and control), years (1998 and
1999), their interaction, and four habitat covariates measured at the plot
502 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
scale: vertical cover, lateral cover, percentage of deciduous twigs, and ericaceous
twigs. Another logistic regression model was built using the presence
of browsing as a dependent variable. No variable selection was conducted;
complete models were estimated using the GENMOD and the GLIMMIX
procedures in SAS 9.1 statistical software (SAS Institute, Inc. 2004).
For all spatial analyses, only two treatments were considered: strips
(upland and riparian pooled) and residual blocks. Home-range size was calculated
with the fixed kernel method (FK 95%) (Seaman and Powell 1996)
using the “Animal Movement Program” extension (Hooge and Eichenlaub
1997) to ArcView 3.2a (ESRI 1997). For each individual, we also calculated
the number of locations for each of the following categories: capture
site, type of residual stand where caught (strip or block), and use of clearcuts
and uncut forest (excluding residual stands). This approach allowed
us to determine use of clear-cuts and uncut forest, and fidelity to capture
site and to a given type of residual stand. For analysis of daily movements,
pairs of consecutive locations for a given animal that were recorded within
48 hr were retained (n = 461 pairs from 20 hares). Straight-line distance between
successive locations was compared using a standardized time elapse
period of 24-h. Mean daily movement distance and the proportion of daily
movements >330 m were compared between strips and blocks. Results
were analyzed with ANOVA or Rank-ANOVA when normality and homogeneity
were not met following log or square root transformations (Conover
and Iman 1981). For all statistical analyses, an alpha threshold of 0.05
was used.
Results
Hare abundance indices in residual forests and controls
Indices of hare abundance were low in all types of residual forest stands
as well as in controls (3.3 ± 9.6 [SE] fecal pellets and 2.0 ± 8.0 [SE] browsed
twigs per plot for all treatments pooled).
There was a significant treatment x year interaction for fecal pellet presence
(F = 2.62, P = 0.05). No significant effect of treatments was observed
in 1998. However, in 1999, presence/absence of fecal pellets in experimental
plots was significantly higher in residual blocks than in upland (F = 2.33, P =
0.02) and riparian strips (F = 2.46, P = 0.01) (Table 1). Vertical cover was
positively correlated with the presence of fecal pellets (F = 16.10, P < 0.001;
Fig. 1a), while no significant relationship was obtained for the other covariates.
Slopes of the relationships were nearly equal among all treatments and
controls. Global mean vertical cover was 50.2%; for each treatment, mean
vertical cover was 47.7% in upland strips, 49.9% in riparian strips, 49.2% in
residual blocks, and 51.0% in controls. Consequently, we included vertical
cover in our model as a positive covariate.
The presence of browsed twigs, another index of treatment use by hares,
showed a significant treatment x year interaction (F = 8.90, P < 0.001;
Table 1). Treatments had significant effects only in 1998, when browsed
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 503
twig presence was significantly higher in blocks than in upland (F = 2.92,
P < 0.01) and riparian strips (F = 2.81, P < 0.01), as well as in controls
when compared with upland (F = 3.12, P < 0.01) and riparian strips (F =
3.19, P < 0.01). No difference was observed between the two types of strips,
or between residual blocks and controls. The presence of browsing in our
experimental plots was both significantly and positively related to the availability
of deciduous and ericaceous twigs (respectively, F = 4.10, P < 0.05,
and F = 5.77, P < 0.05; Figs. 1b and 1c), while vertical and lateral covers
present no apparent relationship with browsing. For each treatment, mean
percentage of ericaceous twigs was 71.3% (upland strips), 59.7% (riparian
strips), 53.9% (residual blocks) and 40.4% (controls), while mean percentage
of deciduous twigs was 2.7% (upland strips), 12.6% (riparian strips),
9.2% (residual blocks), and 5.5% (control). In all treatments, browsing occurred
mainly on White Birch and Vaccinium spp. (blueberries; considered
ericaceous species), moderately on Sheep Laurel and Labrador Tea, while
rare occasional browsing (<5% of relative importance in all treatments) was
also recorded on alders, Chamaedaphne calyculata Moench (Leatherleaf),
Black Spruce, and Balsam Fir (Table 2).
Summer home ranges, fidelity and habitat use, and daily movements
Eight animals died or disappeared shortly after the beginning of telemetry
surveys. Predation caused mortality in four instances, and we suspect
natural causes for two others. Two radio-collared animals were lost rapidly
following capture. We thus retained data from only 12 individuals: 6 caught
in forest strips (3 males and 3 females), and 6 caught in residual blocks (3
males and 3 females). Such a small sample limited our statistical power and,
consequently, our ability to detect significant effects of treatments on hare
habitat use. However, individual home-range sizes were approximately three
times larger in strips (upland and riparian pooled) than in residual blocks
(P = 0.07; Table 3) in summer. Hares captured in strips did not confine their
activity to where they were first caught, and fidelity to capture stand was
Table 1. Mean occurrence of fecal pellets and browsing (% ± SE, according to a cluster sampling
scheme) within sampling plots in mature residual or control forest. Means with different letters
are significantly different as indicated by a logistic regression conducted on treatments with
fixed-year effect, and should be interpreted independently within columns and years.
Mean occurrence (% ± SE) of
Year Treatment (n) Fecal pellets Browsing
1998 Upland strips (5) 21.3 ± 14.7 a 4.4 ± 2.7 a
Riparian strips (5) 41.3 ± 11.4 a 8.0 ± 2.5 a
Residual blocks (3) 51.3 ± 14.3 a 30.4 ± 8.7 b
Controls (5) 51.7 ± 4.7 a 30.0 ± 5.8 b
1999 Upland strips (5) 28.0 ± 12.3 a 17.3 ± 2.6 a
Riparian strips (5) 26.6 ± 7.9 a 42.6 ± 5.2 a
Residual blocks (3) 65.4 ± 4.2 b 42.3 ± 19.5 a
Controls (5) 48.3 ± 11.0 ab 25.8 ± 10.0 a
504 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
significantly higher in residual blocks (P < 0.01; Table 3). Moreover, hares
captured in blocks generally remained more associated with blocks than
hares caught in strips (P = 0.07) during the 14 weeks of telemetry survey.
Consequently, hares from strips tended to use neighbouring large uncut
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 505
forest areas surrounding logged areas more intensively than hares from
blocks (P = 0.08; Table 3). However, there was no significant difference
in the percentage of locations in clear-cuts between hares caught in strips
and those caught in blocks (P = 0.19; Table 3); open habitat was apparently
avoided. No significant difference was detected between daily movements
of hares from strips and those from blocks (P = 0.28), but differences among
individuals were highly significant (P < 0.001; Table 3). Hares from blocks
Table 2. Relative availabilityA (%), useB (%) and importance in hare dietC (%) of browsed species
in treatments and controls.
Treatments
Upland strips Riparian strips Residual blocks Controls
Variable Species (n = 5) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 5)
Availability
Balsam Fir 1.1 8.8 8.1 33.5
Black Spruce 38.3 28.9 37.7 31.5
Blueberry 5.4 5.7 2.6 0.9
Labrador Tea 7.4 28.7 25.7 11.2
Sheep Laurel 44.3 15.2 20.0 14.2
White Birch 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.4
OthersD 2.2 12.1 5.8 8.4
Use
Balsam Fir 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Black Spruce 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Blueberry 2.1 5.3 40.5 27.7
Labrador Tea 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3
Sheep Laurel 0.2 2.2 0.4 2.9
White Birch 0.8 2.4 32.1 3.0
OthersD 0.0 0.1 1.2 3.6
Importance
Balsam Fir 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.3
Black Spruce 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.8
Blueberry 34.8 38.7 73.0 20.8
Labrador Tea 0.0 12.6 7.2 3.4
Sheep Laurel 27.7 46.1 4.7 42.3
White Birch 37.5 1.9 5.9 1.4
OthersD 0.0 0.8 6.7 29.0
ARelative availability of twigs = 100 * (number of twigs of species x / total number of twigs)
BRelative use of available twigs by hares = 100 * (number of browsed twigs of species x / total
number of twigs of species x)
CRelative importance of browsed twigs in hare diet = 100 * (number of browsed twigs of species
x / total number of browsed twigs)
DOthers = species for which browsing was also recorded (< 5% in all treatments), i.e., alders,
Amelanchier spp. (juneberry), Leatherleaf, and Salix spp. (willows).
Figure 1 (opposite page). Vertical cover, mean percentages of deciduous and ericaceous
twigs as covariates having significant effect on logit of fecal pellets or browsed
twigs’ presence in the logistic regression models. For each treatment (US = upland
strips, RS = riparian strips, RB = residual blocks, CO = controls), full lines indicate
significant correlations (P < 0.05) while dashed lines indicate no significant linear
relation with logit (P > 0.05). Shaded grey bars centered the mean of the covariates
(vertical grey dotted lines) where the validity of our conclusions is the highest.
506 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
tended to be less prone to make long-distance movements (>330 m) than
those from strips (P = 0.10; Table 3) during summer.
Discussion
Assessing population levels at low density
Comparison of hare population levels at low density is often complicated.
Considering that a single Snowshoe Hare produces approximately between
445 ± 31 and 579 ± 16 (SE) fecal pellets per day (Hodges 1999, Murray et al.
2005) and in clumps (Krebs et al. 2001b), our estimates are low but representative
of the poor habitat quality of eastern boreal spruce forests. For example,
mean fecal pellet abundances ranged from 1.6 to 6.4 pellets/m2 in western
Québec (Ferron et al. 1998), depending on the phase of the hare density cycle.
Near our study area, pellet densities were as low as 0.3 ± 0.1 pellets/m2 in mature
Black Spruce stands (St-Laurent et al. 2007). In comparison, mean pellet
densities ranged between 85–149 pellets/m2 in Western Canada (Krebs et al.
1987, 2001b). Two other factors may have contributed to the low values of
hare indices in our study. The understory in residual forest stands had a mean
lateral cover of 57% (in strips) and 67% (in blocks), which is below the optimal
threshold of 85% reported by Carreker (1985) and Ferron and Ouellet (1992),
although still higher than the 40% threshold necessary to maintain hares (see
Carreker 1985). We speculate that low lateral cover density, along with the
relative homogeneity of stand structure and composition in our study sites,
may explain the absence of significant relationships with hare abundance.
Moreover, hares browsed mainly White Birch and some ericaceous twigs, and
as ericaceous shrubs were covered by snow during winter and birches were
scarce, food became limited. Both unpalatable Balsam Fir and Black Spruce
(Bookout 1965, Keith et al. 1984) were abundant in our study area.
Table 3. Comparison of home-range size (fixed kernel 95%), fidelity to capture site and to type of
residual forest stand, use of clear-cuts and mature forest, and daily movements between Snowshoe
Hares from strips (upland and riparian confounded) and hares from blocks, between mid-May and
mid-August. A = ANOVA, R-A = Rank-ANOVA, T = treatment, S = sex, and Ind = individual.
Dependent Mean ± SE
variable Strips (n = 6) Blocks (n = 6) Test Factor F P df
Home range (ha) 112.0 ± 12 39.0 ± 6 A T 4.56 0.07 1
S 0.24 0.92 1
T*S 0.16 0.95 1
Fidelity to capture site (%) 20.3 ± 8.4 73.4 ± 13.9 A T 10.70 <0.01 1
Fidelity to type of residual 34.3 ± 13.3 73.4 ± 13.9 R-A T 4.13 0.07 1
forest stand (%)
Locations in clearcuts (%) 10.4 ± 2.5 5.0 ± 2.9 R-A T 1.96 0.19 1
Locations in neighboring 55.2 ± 11.8 21.6 ± 12.6 R-A T 3.82 0.08 1
mature forest (%)
Daily movements (m) 491.2 ± 40.7 345.6 ± 26.5 R- A T 1.30 0.28 1
Ind (T) 6.91 <0.001 10
Daily movements >330 m (%) 52.0 ± 6.7 34.9 ± 6.7 A T 3.31 0.10 1
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 507
Hare occurrence vs. treatments
Up to 5 years after logging, all types of residual forest were used by hares
at least occasionally. However, both indices of the relative use of treatments
by hares (fecal pellets and browsing) were significantly greater or tended
to be greater most of the time in larger forest stands (residual blocks and
controls) than in forest strips (both upland and riparian). In contrast, no difference
in pellet density was observed between riparian Balsam Fir strips
ranging between 20 to 300 m in width (Darveau et al. 1998). Protection from
predators is crucial for the Snowshoe Hare (Krebs et al. 2001c), especially in
habitat with poor cover, such as mature Black Spruce forest. In our logistic
regression model, vertical cover was a highly significant predictor of the
presence of fecal pellets, which suggested that forest structure influenced
the abundance of this species. On the other hand, the presence of browsed
twigs was significantly related to the availability of deciduous and ericaceous
twigs. As a steep slope was observed between logit of browsing and deciduous
twig availability, it appeared that deciduous tree species had a greater
influence than ericaceous species on habitat use by hares. This relationship
was probably due to the low occurrence of deciduous twigs in the understory
of Black Spruce stands and its importance in hare diets in Québec (Cusson
2000, Ferron et al. 1998, Potvin 1995). However, presence of browsing in
riparian strips was not related to deciduous twig availability, which was low
when compared to ericaceous species. There was almost no difference in
food availability between strips and blocks (Table 2), and mean abundance of
stems and twigs was similar between treatments (Appendix 2).
Lack of relationships between lateral cover and hare habitat use may
appear problematic. Indeed, lateral cover is known widely as an important
predictor of hare abundance in forested habitats (e.g., Carreker 1985, Conroy
et al. 1979, Ferron and Ouellet 1992, Ferron et al. 1998, Keith 1990,
Monthey 1986). In our case, lateral cover was homogeneous and similar
among study sites and treatments that are all composed of mature forest
with sparse undercover (upland strips: 56.6 ± 8.0% [SE]; riparian strips:
57.6 ± 7.5%; residual blocks: 66.5 ± 9.5%; controls: 67.6 ± 7.4%). We suggest
that homogeneity may explain the absence of effect of lateral cover on
hare occurrence in our analyses.
It was already observed that hares foraged in regenerating clearcuts as
food becomes more available over the years after logging (Monthey 1986).
Although abundance of stems and twigs was similar in recent clear-cuts
surrounding strips and blocks in our study area (Appendix 2), browsing
was significantly lower in clear-cuts adjacent to blocks than in those
bordering strips (Appendix 3). Using clear-cuts may thus be related to a
greater inability to fulfill habitat requirements within strips than within
blocks. This finding supports the idea that hares’ browsing can be influenced
by factors other than abundance of food resources (e.g., habitat,
cover). However, telemetry data (<10% of locations in clear-cuts) and pellet
counts (see Cusson 2000) suggest that hares did not remain for long in
508 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
the open, where 4 of 8 dead hares were found. Snowshoe Hares are known
to avoid open areas (Keith 1990) and to travel under dense cover (Brocke
1975, Conroy et al. 1979, Ferron and Ouellet 1992).
Hare habitat use vs. treatment
As mean home-range size was larger than the average area of a residual
strip, hares would be forced to: 1) use either the adjacent clear-cut, which offered
unsuitable cover, at least shortly after logging; 2) restrict their activity to
connecting strips; or 3) emigrate from the logged landscape. Due to the high
proportion of clear-cuts in a strip landscape, hares may be subjected to greater
predation risk because of sparse hiding cover, excessive edges, and linear and
narrow residual strips. Indeed, a fragmented landscape may increase hare mortality
(Keith 1990, Sievert and Keith 1985). Because of a limited sample size,
we did not conduct survival analyses. However, we suggest that susceptibility
to predation may have been comparable between strips and blocks because
hiding cover was relatively homogeneous between them. Nevertheless, the
larger edge-to-area ratio may force hares to cross clear-cuts more frequently in
a strip scenario than in a block configuration.
Our telemetry data indicated that hares from strips did not remain confined to the residual forest stand where they were captured and that they used
adjacent large areas of uncut forest or other strips more frequently compared
to hares from blocks. Further, hares from blocks tended to be more sedentary,
and had smaller home ranges and a lower proportion of large daily movements
(>330 m) than those from strips. Similarly, Potvin et al. (2005b), using winter
track surveys in the landscape we studied, observed hare activity concentrated
farthest from the edge of the clear-cut (>20 m). They related this observation
to the behaviour of predators. Within the same landscape, Martes americana
Turton (American Marten) winter tracks followed strips along their longitudinal
axis (Potvin and Bertrand 2004). Potvin et al. (2005b) have also shown
that hares are more frequently found in strips adjacent to larger residual forest
patches (>25 ha). Residual forest was still present on 32% of our study area,
and many strips were connected to large blocks of uncut forest so that strips
could have been used more intensively in this area than in landscapes supporting
no large patches of mature forest. Also, hares tended to avoid recently
logged areas (Cusson 2000, Ferron et al. 1998). These findings suggest that
hares avoid edges adjacent to recent clear-cuts, an over-represented habitat in
residual strip scenario. Moreover, proportion of daily movements >330 m was
higher in both Black Spruce strips (52.0%) and blocks (34.9%) than observed
by Brocke (1975) in mixed-wood forest stands (5%). This result suggests that
Black Spruce stands are a poorer habitat for hares than mixed-wood forest,
forcing them to expand their home range and daily movements.
We found evidences that hare activity was concentrated in residual
blocks rather than strips. However, the lack of statistically significant differences
in our telemetry analyses may be due to our sample size (reduced
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 509
to 12 individuals) or to spatial heterogeneity between sites of each type of
treatment. Indeed, stand structure is the most relevant group of variables
explaining relative abundances of Snowshoe Hare, followed by landscape
characteristics (St-Laurent et al. 2007, 2008).
Management implications
Our study suggests that, up to 5 years after logging, configuring residual
forest into 20–50-ha blocks might be more suitable to Snowshoe Hares than
configuring in 60-m-wide strips, at least in summer. Sizes of individual
summer home ranges were relatively large in mature Black Spruce forest;
extensive residual forest stands may provide better habitats for hares. Similar
conclusions were drawn from a companion study that occurred during
winter (Potvin et al. 2005b), so relationships between Snowshoe Hares,
strips, and blocks appear consistent year-round. Our results were obtained
mainly in summer, during the high phase of the hare density cycle. Although
cycle amplitude was low in our study area when compared to northwestern
Canada (Ferron and St-Laurent 2008), hares may be forced into using suboptimal
habitats such as strips during a high phase, and strip avoidance may be
amplified during the low phase. Considering the actual regulation in several
Canadian provinces, our results questioned the relevance of configuring residual
forest only in strips on a large-scale basis. Such concern is based here
on Snowshoe Hare habitat requirements, but can be extended to other species
that are more closely correlated to mature forest.
It is important to note that negative impacts related to edge proximity
or to size and shape of residual forest stands will be lessened as regeneration
proceeds. Indeed, regenerating stands 3 m in height can fulfill
hare habitat requirements adequately if regeneration is dense and mixed
(coniferous and deciduous species intermingled) (St-Laurent et al. 2008).
However, large mature forest patches must be protected in the landscape
to conserve wildlife associated with mature forest and to maintain ecological
processes.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Ministère des Ressources Naturelles du Québec and the Société de
la Faune et des Parcs du Québec for financial and logistic support, and the Fondation
de la Faune du Québec for financial support. We also thank the Abitibi-Consolidated
company for its support and collaboration. We thank N. Bertrand and F. Potvin for
project coordination and for helpful comments during writing, M. Huot for English
revision, and C. Paquet and L. Breton for technical assistance. We are grateful to E.
Reny-Nolin and G. Daigle for statistical analyses. During field sessions we were supported
by a tenacious and efficient team of biologists and technicians: S. Daraîche,
N. Gaborit, K. Bergeron, D.-J. Maguire, M.-C. Rancourt, S. Boucher, S. Boisvert
and J. Michaud. M.-H. St-Laurent received funding from the Fonds Québécois de
Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies, the Fondation de l’Université du Québec
à Montréal, the Université du Québec à Rimouski, and the Consortium de Recherche
sur la Forêt Boréale Commerciale de l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi.
510 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
Literature Cited
Benz, F. 2000. Effets de coupes en damiers sur l’utilisation de l’habitat par la Gélinotte
Huppée (Bonasa umbellus) et le Lièvre d’Amérique (Lepus americanus)
dans la sapinière à bouleau jaune. M.Sc. Thesis. Université du Québec à Rimouski,
Rimouski, QC. 72 pp.
Betts, M.G., G.J. Forbes, A.W. Diamond, and P.D. Taylor. 2006. Independent effects
of habitat amount and fragmentation on songbirds in a forest mosaic: An organism-
based approach. Ecological Applications 16:1076–1089.
Bookout, T.A. 1965. The Snowshoe Hare in upper Michigan: Its biology and feeding
co-actions with White-tailed Deer. Michigan Department of Conservation, MI.
Resources and Development Report 38. 191 pp.
Brocke, R.H. 1975. Preliminary guidelines for managing Snowshoe Hare habitat in
the Adirondacks. Transactions of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference
32:46–66.
Carreker, R.G. 1985. Habitat sustainability index models: Snowshoe Hare. US Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biological
Report 82 (10.101). 21 pp.
Conover, W.J., and R.L. Iman. 1981. Rank transformation as a bridge between parametric
and nonparametric statistics. American Statistician 35:124–132.
Conroy, M.J., L.W. Gysel, and G.R. Dudderar. 1979. Habitat components of clearcut
areas for Snowshoe Hares in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management
43:680–690.
Cusson, M. 2000. Utilisation de différents types de structures forestières résiduelles
par le Lièvre d’Amérique (Lepus americanus) en forêt boréale après coupe à
blanc. M.Sc. Thesis. Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, QC, Canada.
50 pp.
Darveau, M., J. Huot, and L. Bélanger. 1998. Riparian forest strips as habitat for
Snowshoe Hare in boreal Balsam Fir forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
28:1494–1500.
de Bellefeuille, S., N. Gagné, L. Bélanger, J. Huot, A. Cimon, S. Déry, and J.-P. Jetté.
2001. Effets de trois scénarios de régénération de la sapinière boréale sur les
passereaux nicheurs, les petits mammifères et le Lièvre d’Amérique. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 31:1312–1325.
Environment Canada. 1993. Canadian Climate Normals 1961–1990. Ministry of
Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service. A Publication of Canadian
Climatology Program. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 157 pp.
ESRI. 1997. ArcView GIS 3.2a. Environment System Research Institute, Inc., Redlands,
CA.
Ferron, J., and J.-P.Ouellet. 1992. Daily partitioning of summer habitat and use of
space by the Snowshoe Hare in southern boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology
70:2178–2183.
Ferron, J., and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2005. L’importance de la forêt résiduelle pour
conserver les communautés fauniques dans des paysages bureaux perturbés
par la coupe forestière. VertigO 6:8p. Available online at http:www.vertigo.
uqam.ca/vol6no2/art7vol6no2/vertigovol6no2_ferron_et_stlaurent.pdf. Accessed
June 1, 2007.
Ferron, J., and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2008. Forest-fire regime: The missing link to understand
Snowshoe Hare population fluctuations? Pp. 141–152, In P.C. Alves, N.
Ferrand, and K. Hackländer (Eds.). Lagomorph Biology: Evolution, Ecology, and
Conservation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 413 pp.
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 511
Ferron, J., F. Potvin, and C. Dussault. 1998. Short-term effects of logging on
Snowshoe Hares in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
28:1335–1343.
Godbout, G. 1998. Détermination de la présence d’un cycle de population du Lièvre
d’Amérique (Lepus americanus) au Québec et des méthodes de suivi applicables
à cette espèce. M.Sc. Thesis. Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, QC,
Canada. 118 pp.
Hodges, K.E. 1999. Proximate factors affecting Snowshoe Hare movements during
a cyclic population low phase. Écoscience 6:487–496.
Hooge, P.N., and B. Eichenlaub. 1997. Animal movement extension to Arcview version
1.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Anchorage,
AK.
Hosie, R.C. 1972. Arbres Indigènes du Canada. Ministère de l’Environnement, Service
Canadien des Forêts. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 385 pp.
Hosmer, D.W., Jr., and S. Lemeshow. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley
and Sons Inc. NewYork, NY. 307 pp.
Hunter, M.L., Jr., G.L. Jacobson, Jr., and T. Webb III. 1988. Paleoecology and the
coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology
2:375–385.
Keith, L.B. 1990. Dynamics of Snowshoe Hare populations. Pp. 119–195, In H.H.
Genoways (Ed.). Current Mammalogy. Plenum Press, New York, NY. 893 pp.
Keith, L.B., J.R. Cary, O.J. Rongstad, and M.C. Brittingham. 1984. Demography and
ecology of a declining Snowshoe Hare population. Wildlife Monograph 90:1–43.
Krebs, C.J., B. Scott Gilbert, S. Boutin, and R. Boonstra. 1987. Estimation of Snowshoe
Hare population density from turd transects. Canadian Journal of Zoology
65:565–567.
Krebs, C.J., S. Boutin, and R. Boonstra. 2001a. Ecosystem Dynamics of the Boreal
Forest: The Kluane Project. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 511 pp.
Krebs, C.J., R. Boonstra, V. Nams, M. O’Donoghue, K.E. Hodges, and S. Boutin.
2001b. Estimating Snowshoe Hare population density from pellet plots: A further
evaluation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1–4.
Krebs, C.J., R. Boonstra, S. Boutin, and A.R.E. Sinclair. 2001c. What drives the
10-years cycle of Snowshoe Hare? Bioscience 5:25–35.
MacKenzie, D.I. 2005. What are the issues with presence-absence data for wildlife
managers? Journal of Wildlife Management 69:849–860.
McRae, D.J., L.C. Duchesne, B. Freedman, T.J. Lynham, and S. Woodley. 2001.
Comparisons between wildfire and forest harvesting and their implications in
forest management. Environmental Review 9:223–260.
Monthey, R.W. 1986. Responses of the Snowshoe Hares, (Lepus americanus), to
timber harvesting in Northern Maine. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:568–570.
Murray, D.L. 2003. Snowshoe Hare and other hares. Pp. 147–175, In G.A. Feldhamer,
B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (Eds.). Wild Mammals of North America:
Biology, Management, and Conservation. 2nd Edition. John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore. MD. 1216 pp.
Murray, D.L., J.D. Roth, E. Ellsworth, A.J. Wirsing, and T.D. Steury. 2002. Estimating
low-density Snowshoe Hare populations using fecal pellet counts. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 80:771–781.
Murray, D., E. Ellsworth, and A. Zack. 2005. Assessment of potential bias with
Snowshoe Hare fecal pellet-plot counts. Journal of Wildlife Management
69:385–395.
512 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
Nudds, T.D. 1977. Quantifying the vegetative structure of wildlife cover. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 5:113–117.
Potvin, F. 1995. L’inventaire du brout: Revue des méthodes et description des deux
techniques. Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère Environnement et Faune, Québec,
QC, Canada. 70 pp.
Potvin, F., and N. Bertrand. 2004. Leaving forest strips in large clear-cut landscapes
of boreal forest: A management scenario suitable for wildlife? Forestry Chronicle
80:44–53.
Potvin, F., and R. Courtois. 2007. Incidence of Spruce Grouse in residual forest strips
within large clear-cut boreal landscapes. Northeastern Naturalist 13:507–520.
Potvin, F., R. Courtois, and L. Bélanger. 1999. Short-term response of wildlife to
clear-cutting in Quebec boreal forest: Multiscale effects and management implications.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:1120–1127.
Potvin, F., L. Breton, and R. Courtois. 2005a. Response of Beaver, Moose, and
Snowshoe Hare to clear-cutting in a Quebec boreal forest: A reassessment 10
years after cut. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:151–160.
Potvin, F., N. Bertrand, and J. Ferron. 2005b. Attributes of forest strips used by
Snowshoe Hare in winter within clear-cut boreal landscapes. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 35:2521–2527.
Québec Government. 1996. Regulation Respecting Standards of Forest Management
for Forests in the Public Domain. Ministry of Natural Resources, Quebec, QC,
Canada. 35 pp.
SAS Institute, Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 9.1, Seventh Edition,
Volume 2. Cary, NC. 978 pp.
Seaman, D.E., and R.A. Powell. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density
estimators for home-ranges analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085.
Sievert P.R., and L.B. Keith. 1985. Survival of Snowshoe Hares at geographic range
boundary. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:854–866.
Stanley, T.R., and J.A. Royle. 2005. Estimating site occupancy and abundance using
indirect detection indices. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:874–883.
St-Laurent, M.-H., J. Ferron, C. Hins, and R. Gagnon. 2007. Effects of residual structure
and landscape characteristics on habitat use by birds and small mammals in
managed boreal forest of eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
37:1298–1309.
St-Laurent, M.-H., J. Ferron, S. Haché, and R. Gagnon. 2008. Planning timber harvest
of residual forest stands without compromising bird and small mammal communities
in boreal landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 254:261–275.
Thibault, M. 1985. Les Régions Écologiques du Québec Méridional (deuxième approximation).
Ministère de l’Énergie et des Ressources du Québec, Service de la
Recherche, Québec, QC, Canada. 112 pp.
Thompson, I.D. 1988. Habitat needs of furbearers in relation to logging in Ontario.
Forestry Chronicle 64:251–261.
White, G.C., and R.A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of Wildlife Radio-Tracking Data.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 383 pp.
Zielinski, W.J., and H.B. Stauffer. 1996. Monitoring marten populations in California:
Survey design and power analysis. Ecological Applications 6:1254–1267.
2008 M.-H. St-Laurent, M. Cusson, J. Ferron, and A. Caron 513
Appendix 1. Mean abundance of fecal pellets and browsed twigs (± SE) standardized per area unit (1 m2) in mature residual or control forest and clear-cut surrounding
residual stands. These raw data were converted into occurrence (presence/absence) to conduct logistic regressions (see Table 1). N/A = no reference is
made to clear-cuts for control stands, as there was no surrounding clear-cuts.
Mean density of fecal pellets (± SE) Mean density of browsed twigs (± SE)
Habitat Year Upland strips Riparian strips Residual blocks Controls Upland strips Riparian strips Residual blocks Controls
Mature forest 1998 1.09 ± 2.40 0.85 ± 0.83 1.16 ± 1.48 1.15 ± 1.50 0.03 ± 0.07 0.23 ± 0.58 1.14 ± 3.14 0.77 ± 1.12
1999 0.40 ± 0.59 0.64 ± 1.35 1.77 ± 1.99 1.32 ± 1.56 0.12 ± 0.18 0.96 ± 0.89 1.09 ± 1.53 0.63 ± 1.17
Clear-cut 1998 0.00 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.04 0.39 ± 1.03 N/A 0.30 ± 0.42 1.56 ± 2.30 0.15 ± 0.40 N/A
1999 0.03 ± 0.06 0.01 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.09 N/A 0.78 ± 1.23 6.09 ± 13.58 0.25 ± 0.38 N/A
Appendix 2. Mean abundance (± SE) of stems (>1 cm DBH, <2 m height) and twigs (the last terminal or lateral division of a stem; >10 cm long) in sampling
plots located in mature residual or control forest and clear-cuts surrounding residual stands. Means with different letters are significantly different as indicated
by a nested two-way ANOVA conducted on treatments. Statistical differences between treatments must be interpreted independently for each year. N/A = no
reference is made to clear-cuts for control stands, as there were no surrounding clear-cuts.
Mean abundance of stems (± SE) Mean abundance of twigs (± SE)
Habitat Year Upland strips Riparian strips Residual blocks Controls Upland strips Riparian strips Residual blocks Controls
Mature forest 1998 2.3 ± 0.3 a 1.8 ± 0.3 a 2.8 ± 0.5 a 1.9 ± 0.4 a 15.8 ± 5.1 ab 11.1 ± 0.9 a 17.3 ± 2.1 ab 28.7 ± 6.2 b
1999 2.2 ± 0.3 a 2.2 ± 0.3 a 1.9 ± 0.3 a 2.3 ± 0.2 a 13.1 ± 3.2 a 17.9 ± 3.2 a 13.9 ± 5.3 a 22.4 ± 10.0 a
Clear-cut 1998 9.7 ± 1.1 a 11.7 ± 1.6 a 17.2 ± 8.1 a N/A 76.5 ± 22.1 a 60.0 ± 6.3 a 57.3 ± 26.2 a N/A
1999 7.7 ± 2.4 a 14.0 ± 5.1 a 9.1 ± 6.0 a N/A 75.0 ± 34.3 a 93.2 ± 32.3 a 34.1 ± 22.6 a N/A
514 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 4
Appendix 3. Mean occurrence of fecal pellets and browsing (%± SE) in sampling plots located
in clear-cuts surrounding residual stands. Means with different letters are significantly different
as indicated by a logistic regression conducted on treatments with fixed year effect. Statistical
differences between treatments must be interpreted independently for each year.
Mean occurrence (% ± SE) of
Year TreatmentA (n) Fecal pellets Browsing
1998 Upland strips (5) 0.0 ± 0.0 a 14.0 ± 6.4 a
Riparian strips (5) 6.0 ± 4.0 a 18.0 ± 8.6 a
Residual blocks (3) 5.6 ± 5.6 a 8.3 ± 8.3 b
1999 Upland strips (5) 6.7 ± 4.1 a 21.3 ± 4.7 a
Riparian strips (5) 2.0 ± 2.0 a 40.6 ± 10.5 b
Residual blocks (3) 5.6 ± 5.6 a 26.4 ± 6.1 a
ANo reference is made to control stands, as there were no surrounding clear-cuts.