Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington

Abstract

Wildlife-habitat relationships have been described conceptually (Morrison and others 1998) and for individual species at regional scales (Maser and others 1984; Thomas 1979; Brown 1985). Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of Oregon and Washington updates these works and provides a timely synthesis and summary of existing knowledge of wildlife-habitat relationships in these 2 states. Multi-scale relationships and theory are addressed for 743 terrestrial vertebrates both in a traditional text synthesis format and in CD-ROM data matrices compiled from existing literature and expert panel assessments. This massive (736 pages and 27 chapters) book and its accompanying data reflect the collaborative efforts of over 600 participants, including 88 authors and 34 sponsors. We read this body of work cover-to-cover and put the CD-ROM to the test as part of a graduate course at Oregon State University. Our consensus of this contribution stems from numerous lively discussions, some with wildlife-habitat professionals, particularly Tom O'Neil, Mark Meyers, and Bruce Marcot. Our findings are applausive. This work provides a useful standard for description and discussion of Pacific Northwest habitats and elements, develops unique conceptual themes relevant to species' relationships both regionally and globally, and provides an innovative and interactive tool for information retrieval via the CD-ROM insert. Although it has some shortcomings, the book provides a lucid treatment of a broad array of wildlife subjects across multiple biomes, including temperate coniferous rainforest, shrubgrassland, and coastal-marine areas. This book serves as a foundation reference for wildlife biologists and natural resource managers attempting to understand particular habitats, wildlife species, or management contexts. This is a complex and comprehensive book, and there are too many specifics and authors to cite. Instead, we provide a summary and identify key innovations and limitations of the text. The authors derive 32 wildlife for Oregon and Washington. Cluster analysis is used to collapse species-specific cover type associations into broad habitat types based on similarity of associated wildlife species groups (Chapter 1). This is a satisfying approach in that multi-species data on distribution patterns are used to determine the broad scale types, as opposed to subjectively defining categories. The resulting habitats are characterized (Chapter 2, >30 p color photographs; Chapter 5, Tables 1 to 3) and mapped across Oregon and Washington (pp vii-xi). In addition, heterogeneity is acknowledged by a summary of natural disturbance regimes, succession dynamics, and management impacts. We anticipate that Chapter 2 will be frequently cited to provide basic descriptions. We identified 2 issues of concern in the formulation and presentation of the broad types. First, we noted that the initial vegetative cover associations used in the cluster analysis