Rural System's
Modern Wild Faunal Resource System Management
Faunal Life Group Management
A faunal life group is a species or sub-species to be managed (or any conventional taxon) but it is usually a sub-group of such a named entity, a population requiring significantly different management efforts from other parts of the population.
Examples:
- turkey poult vs. adult
- buck vs. doe deer
- male cardinals vs others
- singing quail vs others
- insect and salamander instars
- for ruffed grouse, there are 2 sexes and 3 age classes each with significantly different food requirements and behavior (Darroch Whitaker's PhD, Virginia Tech, 2003), thus 6 life groups for the manager seeking to explain and predict the changes in a population. e.g., females key of foraging in the bottomlands.
There are often greater differences between life groups within a species than between them and similar genera.
Careful, this may be a difficult concept:
- it starts with conventional species or sub-species groups as the managerial entity...but asks the questions about whether there are managerial differences (feeding, breeding, energy needs, etc.) not just taxonomic differences that need to be addressed to achieve the desired populations cost effectively
- it may be in opposition to "assemblages" or ecological guilds
- it leads to increased refinement (often with computer assistance) rather than encouraging "grouping" of animals
- it suggests emphasis can be placed on managerial options available for each such group, for example the faunal system manager is not just "managing turkeys" but, whether stated for the public or not, he or she is managing turkey poults.
Most actions effect many species or life groups:
| Projects |
Effects of Project
on Life Groups |
Gross Sum of
Effects on Life Groups |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
| 1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
| 2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
| 3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
The magnitude of effect of Project #3 is 2on Life Group #3 but also on Group #1.
Using relative numbers can allow a summation across the row to pick the best action. Here 1 and 3 are tied for "best" since both have a score of 2. The method is most appropriate for rough 50-life-group work; with many groups, ties will be rare.
Go to the top.
Other Resources:
[ Web site Home | Lasting Forests (Introductions) | Units of Lasting Forests | Ranging | Trevey | Forests | Wildlife Law Enforcement Systems | Antler Points | Species-Specific Management | Wilderness | Appendices | Ideas for Development | Disclaimer]
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Send an email message - Questions, revisions?
Last revision January 17, 2004.