|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Rangifer tarandus | Caribou
ABBREVIATION :
RATA
COMMON NAMES :
caribou
woodland caribou
barren-ground caribou
reindeer
American tundra reindeer
Grant's caribou
Alaskan barren-ground caribou
Peary caribou
Peary reindeer
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for caribou is Rangifer tarandus.
There are five subspecies of caribou in the United States and Canada,
and a sixth ssp. is extinct. All six ssp. are listed below [5]:
Rangifer tarandus ssp. caribou (woodland caribou)
R. tarandus ssp. groenlandicus
R. tarandus ssp. pearyi (Peary caribou)
R. tarandus ssp. granti
R. tarandus ssp. eogroenlandicus
R. tarandus ssp. dawsoni, extinct
ORDER :
Artiodactyla
CLASS :
Mammal
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
The woodland caribou is federally listed as endangered [33].
OTHER STATUS :
The woodland caribou is listed by the State of Washington as endangered [37]. Occasionally individuals of this subspecies wander into Montana [26]. Reintroduction programs in Maine have been unsuccessful [22].
In Canada, the woodland caribou is listed as vulnerable in Alberta,
British Columbia, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Ontario, and
Saskatechewan, and threatened in Quebec. The Peary caribou is listed
as threatened in Northwest Territories [38].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
S. A. Snyder, July 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Snyder, S. A. 1991. Rangifer tarandus. In: Remainder of Citation
WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Rangifer tarandus | Caribou
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
The caribou's range extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from
Greenland south through northern Canada. A narrow band extends from the
border between British Columbia and Alberta south into the northern tip
of the Idaho Panhandle. Specific ranges of each subspecies are listed
below [5]:
R. t. ssp. caribou - extends from the mid-central Yukon Territory and
western Northwest Territories south through mid
Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific;
Newfoundland Island; the border between British
Columbia and Alberta, south into the Idaho
Panhandle
R. t. ssp. groenlandicus - eastern and northern Northwest
Territories, northern Manitoba, and Baffin
and Southampton Islands, Canada
R. t. ssp. pearyi - Queen Elizabeth Islands, Canada
R. t. ssp. granti - Alaska, northern half of Yukon Territory, and the
northwestern corner of the Northwest Territories
R. t. ssp. eogroenlandicus - isolated portions of the Northwest
Territories, northeastern Alberta,
northern Saskatchewan, northwestern
Manitoba, and southwestern Greenland
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES44 Alpine
STATES :
| AB |
BC |
MB |
NB |
NF |
NT |
NS |
ON |
PQ |
| SK |
YT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
18 Paper birch
32 Red spruce
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
37 Northern white cedar
38 Tamarack
107 White spruce
201 White spruce
202 White spruce - paper birch
203 Balsam poplar
204 Black spruce
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
208 Whitebark pine
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood - willow
223 Sitka spruce
224 Western hemlock
225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
251 White spruce - aspen
252 Paper birch
253 Black spruce - white spruce
254 Black spruce - paper birch
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT COMMUNITIES :
The woodland caribou inhabits dense spruce (Picea spp.)-fir (Abies
spp.), western redcedar (Thuja plicata)-hemlock (Tsuga spp.), and subalpine fir
(Abies lasiocarpa)-whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests of the
West. They also inhabit mixed age stands of black and white spruce
(Picea mariana, P. glauca) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea), or
ericaceous shrub and willow (Salix spp.) communities of the taiga
[5,24,30]. The barren-ground caribou most frequently inhabits the
arctic tundra, sparsely vegetated with willows, sedges (Carex spp.),
grasses, and forbs [24]. Some barren-ground caribou seek shelter in the
coniferous forests of northern Canada during winter [30].
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY
BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Rangifer tarandus | Caribou
TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS :
Mating Season - mid to late October
Gestation - 7.5 months
Birthing Season - May and June; females within a herd often calve
within 10 days of each other; twinning rare;
calf mortality high
Age of Maturity - 3.5 years for females; young males may
not breed due to competition from other males
Antlers - occur in both sexes; some females in certain populations
do not have antlers; females shed about calving time; males
shed during or after the rut
[5,24,29]
PREFERRED HABITAT :
Woodland caribou inhabit high alpine meadows and open subalpine forests,
as well as lower elevation forests. During summer they seek dense
forests where temperatures are cooler and vegetation is succulent. In
winter caribou move to more open forests to feed on arboreal lichens,
moving to higher elevation, south slopes in late winter [24,29]. In the
Selkirk Mountains of Idaho woodland caribou move to low elevation
cutover units in spring to take advantage of early green-up [32].
Caribou can smell food under deep snow (24 inches [60 cm] or deeper) and
dig craters in the snow to access food [23,24]. Barren-ground caribou
prefer the open tundra, but some populations seek tree cover in adjacent
boreal forests during winter [19,24]. Irregular terrain is preferred
over uniform terrain because the variable snow depth makes food more
accessible in winter [5]. Both barren-ground and woodland caribou use
poorly drained meadows, sedge bogs, and moss muskegs [24].
COVER REQUIREMENTS :
Caribou require escape cover from predators during calving; predation is
a primary population-limiting factor. Woodland caribou need the cover
of dense forests with a large supply of arboreal and ground lichens, as
well as herbaceous forage. Caribou are not easily frightened by man's
activities, and therefore need large spaces to roam where hunting and
poaching pressures are minimized. Caribou also need protection against
flying insects in summer. Cool, shady forests, windy hilltops, or
snowfields can provide an escape [5].
FOOD HABITS :
Studies in the last 20 years have concluded that caribou are not as
entirely dependent on lichens for food as was once thought [16,18,19].
Bergerud [4] stated that caribou do not have specialized feeding habits
and can use most plants when necessary. Lichens are more important
locally, especially to caribou populations that depend on arboreal
lichens during winter [32]. Scotter [30] listed the following lichen
families as important food sources: Caliceaceae, Cypheliaceae,
Peltigeraceae, Gyalectaceae, Lecideaceae, Cladoniaceae, Umbilicariaceae,
Lecanoraceae, Parmeliaceae, Usneaceae, Calophlacaceae, Teloschistaceae,
Buelliaceae, and Physciaceae. Important lichen genera are Cladonia,
Cladina, Cetraria, Peltigera, Stereocaulon, Usnia, and Alectoria
[23,25]. Caribou also eat grasses, sedges, and twigs and leaves of
woody plants [24]. Other foods include horsetail (Equisetum spp.),
willow, huckleberry and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), larch (Larix spp.)
needles, alder (Alnus spp.) leaves, bog birch (Betula glandulosa),
cottongrass (Eriophorum spp.), sweetgale (Myrica gale), Labrador tea
(Ledum groenlandicus), bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), and black
crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) [2,5,8,23,29].
PREDATORS :
Caribou predators include man, wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears
(Ursus arctos), lynx (Felis lynx), and eagles (no species given) [24].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Caribou populations fluctuate with greater intensity than any other
North American ungulate; habitat factors and predation are largely
responsible [7]. Predation, severe weather, and social interactions
cause high calf mortality. Caribou are also susceptible to overhunting
and poaching because they are approachable [5]. Man-made barriers, like
dams and pipelines, disrupt migration of some herds. Caribou suffer
from a variety of fungal and bacterial diseases, as well as parasites;
especially the meningeal worm, Parelaphostrongylus tenuis, carried by
the white-tailed deer [22,24]. Zack [35] listed habitat management
guidelines for caribou seasonal cover. Johnson and others [14] made
recommendations for logging and road building in woodland caribou
habitat.
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Rangifer tarandus | Caribou
DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS :
Davis and Franzmann [9] stated that barren-ground caribou are usually in
tundra habitat during the taiga fire season, so therefore could easily
avoid fire. No reports are given for direct fire effects on woodland
caribou.
HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS :
Fire was once thought to be detrimental to caribou because it destroys
the slow-growing lichens formerly considered primary caribou food. As a
result much of the literature on fire and caribou describes its effects
on lichen communities. Several authors have reviewed literature which
presents conflicting opinions about fire's role in caribou habitat
maintenance. These authors now believe that fire is beneficial to
caribou in the long-term [9,15,17,18,19,25]. There is no dispute that
fires can kill important lichen species and that these lichens can take
a minimum of 30 years to recover [25,30,34]. However, there is dispute
over what constitutes recovery, and lichen reestablishment does not
always lead to caribou recovery [21]. Scotter [30] listed growth rates
for various lichen species. The establishment of a lichen crop after
fire may be more related to grazing pressure by caribou and fire
severity than to the number of years since a previous burn [23].
Edwards [10] blamed extensive, lichen-destroying fires in 1926 in Wells
Grey Park, British Columbia, for the decline of caribou. Later others
surmised that increased predator success due to cover removal was
responsible [9]. Similarly caribou on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, may
have declined following fire more in response to increased predation
than to reduction of forage [9].
Bergerud [3] stated that fires would be beneficial to lichen if
closed-canopy forests converted to lichen woodland or shrub barrens.
But if lichen woodlands became permanent shrub barrens, fire would
reduce forage. Klein [18,19] listed short-term and long-term effects of
fire on caribou populations. Some positive effects of fire include
maintenance of plant diversity, rejuvenation of old-growth forests with
declining lichen populations, and removal of bryophytes which would
stimulate lichen growth [3,18,19,25].
Schaefer and Pruitt [36] conducted a study to determine the short and
long-term effects of fire on the Aikens caribou herd in Manitoba,
concluding that the short-term effects on forage quality are severe. The
effects of fire are largely based on the importance of winter and summer
ranges to caribou populations. Loss of winter range lichens that
constitute population determining energy requirements will put pressure
on summer ranges to provide the lost energy. Therefore, access to other
lichen-rich stands must be available. Fire can also increase downfall
timber, limiting access to foraging areas. Downed timber 1.5 to 3 feet
(0.5-1 m) deep can inhibit accessibility or caused caribou to expend
great amounts of energy to obtain forage [36]. Increased snowfall in
burned areas also reduces accessibility.
FIRE USE :
Fire can be used to create a diversity of forage species and enhance
lichen growth in the long-term. Fire also returns nutrients to the soil
and reduces certain plant species that compete with preferred forage.
Many authors have recommended burning bryophyte communities to stimulate
lichen growth [9,18,19,23,25,27,31]. Fire may actually be required to
maintain healthy lichen communities over a long period of time [25].
However, frequent fires will prevent the establishment of old-growth
forests that harbor important forage lichens and cover. Fires might
also replace treeline forests with less favorable, drier habitat
[15,18,19]. Russell [28] recommended against burning permafrost
communities because fire effects on these communities are not yet known.
He also recommended against suppression of wildfires solely to protect
caribou habitat. When burning, it is important to maintain a
heterogeneity of cover in wintering areas [23]. Ahti and Hepburn [2]
suggested burning Sphagnum fuscum peatlands after 40 to 50 years to
increase lichens. They concluded that burning spruce muskegs produces
"considerable" lichen, as does ground fire in old-growth jack pine
(Pinus banksiana) stands and fire on mossy rock outcrops. Because
lichens need a layer of loose soil to establish, it is better to burn
patches of moss than to strip rocks bare of vegetation. For tundra
heaths, Ahti and Hepburn [2] recommended burning only one-third of a
stand in need of improvement at a time. Another third should be burned
after the first has recovered. The key to fire maintenance of caribou
habitat is to provide alternative, accessible, energy-rich summer and
winter habitats within a herd's range [36].
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY
References for species: Rangifer tarandus
1. Ahlgren, I. F.; Ahlgren, C. E. 1960. Ecological effects of forest fires. Botanical Review. 26: 458-533. [205]
2. Ahti, T.; Hepburn, T. L. 1967. Preliminary studies on woodland caribou range, especially on lichen stands, in Ontario. Res. Rep. (Wildlife) No. 74. Toronto, ON: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Research Branch. 134 p. [13294]
3. Bergerud, Arthur T. 1971. Abundance of forage on the winter range of Newfoundland caribou. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 85: 39-52. [14759]
4. Bergerud, Arthur T. 1972. Food habits of Newfoundland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36: 913-923. [14760]
5. Bergerud, A. T. 1978. Caribou. In: Schmidt, John L.; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds. Big game of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 83-101. [14659]
6. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]
7. Couturier, Serge; Brunelle, Josee; Vandal, Dnis; St. Martin, Guy. 1990. Changes in the population dynamics of the George River caribou herd, 1976-87. Arctic. 43(1): 9-20. [14745]
8. Crete, Michel; Huot, Jean; Gauthier, Line. 1990. Food selection during early lactation by caribou calving on the tundra in Quebec. Arctic. 43(1): 60-65. [14746]
9. Davis, James L.; Franzmann, Albert W. 1979. Fire-moose-caribou interrelationships: a review and assessment. Proc. North American Moose Conference Workshop. 15: 80-118. [7534]
10. Edwards, R. Y. 1954. Fire and the decline of a mountain caribou herd. Journal of Wildlife Management. 18(4): 521-526. [8394]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
13. Henry, G. H. R.; Gunn, A. 1991. Recovery of tundra vegetation after overgrazing by caribou in arctic Canada. Arctic. 44(1): 38-42. [14747]
14. Johnson, Donald R.; Miller, Donald R.; Peek, James M. 1977. Guidelines for human activity within the range of mountain caribou, southern Selirk Mountains. Misc. Publ. No. 3. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. [13652]
15. Johnson, E. A.; Rowe, J. S. 1975. Fire in the subarctic wintering ground of the beverly caribou herd. The American Midland Naturalist. 94(1): 1-14. [8384]
16. Kelleyhouse, David G. 1979. Fire/wildlife relationships in Alaska. In: Hoefs, M.; Russell, D., eds. Wildlife and wildfire: Proceedings of workshop; 1979 November 27-28; Whitehorse, YT. Whitehorse, YT: Yukon Wildlife Branch: 1-36. [14071]
17. Kelsall, John P.; Telfer, E. S.; Wright, Thomas D. 1977. The effects of fire on the ecology of the boreal forest, with particular reference to the Canadian north: a review and selected bibliography. Occasional Paper Number 32. Ottawa: Fisheries and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 58 p. [8403]
18. Klein, David. 1979. Wildfire, lichens and caribou. In: Hoefs, M.; Russell, D., eds. Wildlife and wildfire: Proceedings of workshop; 1979 November 27-28; Whitehorse, YT. Whitehorse, YT: Yukon Wildlife Branch: 37-65. [14074]
19. Klein, David R. 1982. Fire, lichens, and caribou. Journal of Range Management. 35(3): 390-395. [10898]
20. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]
21. Lutz, H. J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior of Alaska. Tech. Bull. No. 1133. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 121 p. [7653]
22. Madson, John. 1991. Bringing the 'bou back to its old stomping grounds. Smithsonian. 22(2): 99-107. [15002]
23. Miller, Donald R. 1976. Taiga winter range relationships and diet. Canadian Wildlife Service Rep. Series No. 36. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada, Wildlife Service. 42 p. (Biology of the Kaminuriak population of barren-ground caribou; pt 3) [13007]
24. Miller, Frank L. 1987. Caribou. In: Chapman, Joseph A.; Feldhamer, George A., eds. Mammals of North America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 923-959. [14660]
25. Miller, Melanie; See, Marianne. 1981. Effects of fire on black spruce/lichen caribou range. Draft Research Proposal, Alaska BLM. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula,.MT. 15 p. [15001]
26. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 1990. Animal species of special concern. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 5 p. [13751]
27. Rowe, J. S.; Scotter, G. W. 1973. Fire in the boreal forest. Quaternary Research. 3: 444-464. [72]
28. Russell, Don. 1979. Fire and the Porcupine caribou winter range. In: Hoefs, M.; Russell, D., eds. Wildlife and wildfire: Proceedings of workshop; 1979 November 27-28; Whitehorse, YT. Whitehorse, YT: Yukon Wildlife Branch: 200-201. [14086]
29. Scott, Michael. 1985. The woodland caribou. In: DiSilvestro, Roger L., ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1985. New York: The National Audubon Society: 495-507. [14661]
30. Scotter, George Wilby. 1964. Effects of forest fires on the winter range of barren-ground caribou in northern Saskatchewan. Wildlife Management Bull. Series 1. No. 18. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, Canadian Wildlife Service, NP Branch. 109 p. [14658]
31. Scotter, George W. 1972. Fire as an ecological factor in boreal forest ecosystems of Canada. In: Fire in the environment: Symposium proceedings; 1972 May 1-5; Denver, CO. FS-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 15-25. [13404]
32. Servheen, Gregg; Lyon, L. Jack. 1989. Habitat use by woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(1): 230-237. [13651]
33. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 42 p. [24413]
34. Wein, R. W. 1975. Vegetation recovery in arctic tundra and forest-tundra after fire. ALUR Rep. 74-75-62. Ottowa, ON: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Arctic Land Use Research Program. 62 p. [12990]
35. Zack, Arthur C. 1989. Interdisciplinary development of caribou habitat management guidelines: the role of the silviculturist. In: Silviculture for all resources: Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop; 1987 May 11-14; Sacramento, CA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Management: 25-47. [14742]
36. Schaefer, James A.; Pruitt, William O., Jr. 1991. Fire and woodland caribou in southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monograph No. 116. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society, Inc. 39 p. [15247]
37. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1994. Species of special concern in Washington - state and federal status. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife. 41 p. [25414]
38. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1992. Canadian species at risk. Ottawa, ON. 10 p. [26183]
[26183] Index
FEIS Home Page
Related categories for Wildlife Species: Rangifer tarandus
| Caribou
|
 |
