The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

The Thomomys Mazama Pocket Gopher in Washington Prairies : A Contemporary View for Management

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng The Thomomys Mazama Pocket Gopher in Washington Prairies : A Contemporary View for Management

Date (dcterms:date)

2003

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Knudsen, Cynthia

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

The Thomomys mazama Pocket Gopher in
Washington Prairies:
A Contemporary View for Management

By
Cynthia J. Knudsen

A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2003

ABSTRACT

The Thomomys mazama Pocket Gopher in
Washington Prairies:
A Contemporary View for Management
Cynthia J. Knudsen
One species living in western Washington prairies is the pocket gopher, (Thomomys
mazama), a vital component in the maintenance of Washington state prairie ecosystems. The
burrowing activities of the T.mazama gophers contribute to the maintenance of the diversity
of plant species in prairies.
Washington State has experienced population growth that has resulted in
development of prairie regions. This development creates interruptions in the pocket gopher’s
habitat that resulting in the creation of edge effects that contribute to habitat fragmentation
and possibly to species extinction. Extinction rates for species residing specifically in prairie
landscapes are highest for the species that are rare, or that require large patches of unbroken
habitat and have short distances between those patches, or for species that have limited
dispersal distances. All these conditions may apply to the T.mazama gopher in Western
Washington prairies.
Immediate research should be conducted to determine how the T.mazama is affected
by habitat fragmentation and to preserve this species valuable place in prairie ecosystems.
There are many modeling programs available to estimate possible impacts to the gopher’s
habitat. Although these modeling projections are useful, they cannot provide complete
solutions, because little data currently exists on the T.mazama gopher to use in these models.
A population survey should be conducted for the presence of T.mazama gophers in
Washington prairies. Once species identification is complete for the T.mazama, this
information may then simultaneously be incorporated within a landscape ecology approach
that addresses prairie ecosystem maintenance on large landscape scales and small scales of
biologic and habitat requirements. This approach addresses a multi-scale systems perspective
that must be incorporated within policy decisions in order to provide maximum protection for
the T.mazama habitat and the larger ecosystem functions.
It is only by these methods that adequate policy can be created to identify and protect
the T.mazama from extirpation. Once accurate gopher inventory data is adapted to modeling
programs, it will be possible to create informed wildlife and land development policy so
Washington prairies may be preserved and priority habitat may protected for the T.mazama..

© 2003
Cynthia Jean Knudsen
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Approval Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Copyright Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiv
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Figure 1. Olympia Airport Habitat Area Distant View . . . . . II
Figure 2. Olympia Airport Habitat Area Closer View . . . . . III
Figure 3. T.mazama in Lacey, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . IV
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
Table 1 Benefits to Plants from Gophers . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
Table 2 Western Washington State Prairies
as listed by Dalquist in 1944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII
Table 3 Processing of Natural Resource Data . . . . . . . . .VIII
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIIII
“Conservations with a Pocket Gopher” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Chapter

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
2. The Thomomys mazama in Washington prairies . . . . 7-9

iv

Subspecies in Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
Habitat Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9
3. Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14
Biological Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
Adaptation to Subterrian Niche, Speciation. . . . . 12-13
Limiting Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-18
Creation of Sub-Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16
Western Washington Populations. . . . . . . . . . 16-17
Genetic Identification of Subpopulations . . . . . . . .18
5. T.mazama Skeletal Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20
6. Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-22
7. Diet of the T.mazama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-24
8. Damage to Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-27
9. Methods of Trapping Gophers and Alternatives. . . . . 28-29
Translocation of the T.mazama . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Benefits to the Ecosystem from Gophers. . . . . . . . 30-35
11. Gophers and Benefits to Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-37

12. Prairie Habitat and the Pocket Gopher. . . . . . . . . 38-41
13. Current Habitat Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-46
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
T.mazama Habitat Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-44
GIS and the T.mazama in Washington State . . . 44-46
14. Field Observations at the Olympia Washington
Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-51
15. Prairie Restoration in Washington State. . . . . . . . 51-55
16. Recommendations for Conserving Washington State
Prairies, and Assisting in Protecting the T.mazama. . .56-65
Ecosystem Approach to Landscape Management . 56-57
Evaluating Policy . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57-60
Research Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . 60-63

v

Recommendations against Translocation
Of the T.mazama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-64
17. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64-65
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66-78

vi

List of Figures
Figure

Page

Figure 1. Olympia Airport Habitat Area Distant View . . . . II
Figure 2. Olympia Airport Habitat Area Closer View . . . . III
Figure 3. T.mazama in Lacey, Washington . . . . . . . . . IV

I

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Olympia Washington Airport
This figure illustrates historic Bush Prairie habitat locations for the T.mazama, impacts from
development activities to current prairie regions, and current locations of gopher captures
(Dalquest 1944; Steinberg 1999).
Capture locations are illustrated for the T.mazama from 1944 and 1999, in this region that
is now been severely affected by urban development as evidenced by the density of roads in the
area. Locations of historic gopher capture are indicated by the triangular shapes where captures
occurred in 1944 (Dalquest 1944). Current capture locations from 1999 are illustrated by small
circles on the Olympia Airport grounds in the left quadrant and also in the upper left regions
where a capture occurred on private land.
Prairie remnants defined by Washington State Department of Natural Resources, are
displayed in this illustration as irregularly shaped shaded areas, towards the bottom right of the
map, and a few in the upper left region. These shaded areas may provide locations of possible
optimum habitat for the T.mazama, although no recorded captures of gophers were made in these
prairie remnant regions.
This habitat region has T.mazama populations that are not currently protected by any
conservation measures although the area is greatly affected by urban development.

II

Figure 2.

Figure 2. Detail of the Olympia Airport Area.
This habitat map indicates current and historic habitat locations for the T.mazama. Washington
State current prairie regions as defined by Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
are shown as dark shaded areas, present right on the Olympia Airport grounds. Current capture
locations are indicated as the small dot in the upper right region on private land, and on the
grounds of the Olympia Airport from 1999.
A historic capture location is referenced by the triangle shape where a capture was
recorded in 1944. Note the habitat locations on private land as a small circle to the top right
portion of the illustration. This indicates the importance of protecting habitat regions on public
and private land (Dalquest 1944; Steinberg 1999).

III

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Habitat location of T.mazama gopher in Lacey, Washington
(Steinberg 1999)
This illustration indicates the location of a gopher in Lacey, Washington, near the
intersection of College Street and SR 507. Existing prairie remnants are shown as
irregular shaded shapes to the right of the small circle that indicates the capture of a
T.mazama in this urban area.
Since pocket gophers have little aboveground motility, they can become isolated
in urban areas such as illustrated in the habitat map shown above. This illustration
clearly indicates that the T.mazama is capable of living in densely populated urban
areas outside of land that is currently classified as natural, gharry oak, and shrub land
prairie areas by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Protection for this
species must also include public and private land policy if they are to survive.

IV

List of Tables

Table

Page
1. Benefits to Plants from Gophers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
2. Western Washington State Prairies
as listed by Dalquist 1944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII
3. Processing of Natural Resource Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII

V

Table 1.

Benefits to Plants from Gophers (Huntly 1988 p. 789).
Ecosystem Processes Affected by Burrowing Activity in Gopher Habitat

1 WEEK, 1M ²

1 YEAR, 100M ²

50 YEARS

Increased light penetration

Increased resource heterogeneity

Altered soil fertility

Altered soil resources

Increased topographic heterogeneity

Altered rate of succession

Decreased plant biomass

Increased plant species richness

Altered Path of Succession

Increased available resources

Increased variability in plant biomass

Altered topography

New colonization sites

More microhabitats for consumers

As the table illustrates, burrowing activities of pocket gophers create increase soil
mixing, enhanced water permeation and soil aeration although these observations are
general (Hansen 1968; Huntly 1988). These general observations are only partially
useful for prairie environments because additional various components of species
diversity need to be included within a complete analysis of the landscape. Detailed
quantative studies will need to include more parameters in individual environments such
as; the number of species present, (species richness) abundance of different species
(species evenness), species that are present (species composition), interactions between
species (nonadditive effects) that include temporal and spatial variation (Symstad 2003).

VI

Table 2.
Western Washington State Prairies as listed by Dalquist (1944)

Prairie Name

Gopher
Subspecies

Location and Soil Depth of Prairies

BUSH PRAIRIE

pugetensis

VAIL PRAIRIE

yelmensis

1 mile W. Vail, Thurston County 3 feet or less
in soil

yelmensis

2 miles south Tenino, Thurston County soil 3
feet deep

ROY PRAIRIE

glacialis

2 miles South of Roy, Pierce County 4 feet
deep soil

ROCKY PRAIRIE

tumuli

5 miles N. Tenino, Thurston County

yelmensis

2 miles N. Rochester, Thurston County soil 3
feet deep

SCOTTS PRAIRIE

couchi

4 Miles north of Shelton Mason County soil 9
inches thick and stony

LOST LAKE
PRAIRIE

couchi

15 miles NNE Satsop, Mason County

STEILACOOM
DELTA

tacomensis

2 miles NW Steilacoom, Pierce County

GRAND MOUND
PRAIRIE

ROCHESTER
PRAIRIE

4 miles South of the Puget Sound soil
five foot deep (including the Olympia
Airport and fields west of the Olympia
airport

VII

Table 3.

Processing of Natural Resource Data (Nelson 1988 et.al.)
ABC Resource Survey Process of Data Management
LEVEL 1

Raw Data:
Presented on two sets of maps:
one set with structural information,
the other with functional maps
These maps delineate selected features of
the area where ecological processes occur

LEVEL 2

Interpretation of Environmental Significance and Constraints.
Environmental Significance includes:
comparing cultural and natural
resource values within the region,
derived from ecological theory.
Includes past and present land use
transportation and wildlife corridors, and spatial and
temporal land use from literature searches,
interviews and using topographical imagery.
Constraints: This uses an index
to evaluate significant features of
management considerations such as:
replaceability and compatibility

LEVEL 3

Synthesis
(Summary Maps) These maps focus on
summarizing constraints within the area
evaluating maps developed at level 2.

LEVEL 4

Boundaries and Institutional Arrangements
This is an actual management proposal
for an Environmentally sensitive area,
indicating boundary delineations, desirable buffer areas,
appropriate zoning proposals

VIII

Acknowledgements:

Thanks to John Means. Ken Tabbutt. Deep appreciation to my reader

Ralph

Murphy for taking this project on, Lars, Justin Knudsen, John Perkins, Fran Collins, and
Anna Schmidt. I am thankful for the Evergreen Foundation Grant(s), and other financial
assistance from the MES program. Special thanks to crazy Sue Sanders who bought me a
book when I was broke and helped keep me in school, and Suzanne Cravey who brought
me a pillow and a beer at different times. Deepest appreciation for Dr. Marilyn Gage,
nurse Karen and Pamela Paley, M.D. extraordinaire, who literally saved my life in
summer 2002.
Additional thanks to Rex E. Marsh - without your generosity and support, this
thesis would not be possible, and to Greg Bargmann, who had a part in all this. Thanks to
Ted Whitesell for his great lectures and inspiration, and to the many friends who
sustained me when I needed them.
I give thanks for all the hard times that have made the success of this degree especially
sweet.

Dedication:
This is for you Daniel. Love Mom.
Daniel Ryan Knudsen
17 years 2 months
8-16-1984 - 10-20-2001

IX

“LOAFING AGAIN,” says the Pocket gopher. “You are woefully
lacking in will power. Your work times are brief. Your loafing times are long.”
Reproof is vain in his voice, that gruff grumble-burred scratching in his throat that
somehow shapes itself into words. Irritable by nature, he is trying to irritate me.
Afflicted with a work ethic, he has no appreciation of quiet repose. A lifelong
underground miner, he would undermine my enjoyment of drowsy rest. No matter.
I am armored against him by my curiosity about him.1

1

From Conservations with a Pocket gopher by Jack Schaefer as found in Steinberg, E. K. (1999).
Diversification of Genes, Populations and Species: Evolutionary Genetics of Real and Virtual Pocket
Gophers (Thomomys). Department of Zoology. Seattle, WA., University of Washington: 157p.

X

Chapter 1

Introduction
“The gophers of Puget Sound are doomed to extinction,
(Dalquest 1944).
perhaps within a century”

One species living in western Washington prairies is the pocket gopher,
(Thomomys mazama), a vital component in the maintenance of Washington state prairie
ecosystems. By the process of burrowing, they provide aeration to prairie soils
combined with the resultant introduction of new soil to the surface. These contributions
assist in the valuable function of maintaining diversity of plant species in prairies and
additional beneficial effects to plant and insect species.
Conserving ecological diversity in the natural environment is imperative when
creating policy to protect ecosystem functions. Currently prairies in Washington State
experience degradation from construction, burn suppression, and Douglas fir
encroachment. Protecting and maintaining Washington prairie environments is critical
for maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Will the T.mazama pocket gopher have
adequate management to preserve its valuable place in prairie ecosystems?
Specific information regarding the T. mazama is difficult to find, as well as
locating quantative studies involving specific estimates of damage created by
T.mazama gophers to agricultural crops and tree plantations (Barnes 1973; Kruckeburg

1

1991; Steinberg 1995; Steinberg 1996; Witmer 1996; Verts 1998; Steinberg 1999).
Although all species were identified as T.mazama in the Witmer study in a 1996 South
Puget Sound study, the gophers differed in physical characteristics enough so Witmer
believed that “considerably more research may be required to resolve taxonomic issues
of isolated gopher populations in the Puget Sound Region” (Witmer 1996). This lack
of data and recently expressed concern regarding definitive taxonomic identification of
the T.mazama species represents an urgent need for research, because of the
T.mazama’s current listing status as a species of concern by both Washington State and
Federal Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Many general studies regarding pocket gophers (Thomomys sp.) have
investigated gopher’s relationship to habitat, biology parameters, population structures,
discontinuous habitat patches, and habitat congruity. Other studies have outlined
detailed research needs for conducting biological surveys, but the vast majority of
studies have emphasized population control measures. The lack of current data
regarding the T.mazama confirm the need for collecting additional data that will
provide a comprehensive examination of this species biologic parameters, and provide
current detailed information that will assist in creating protection measures.
Washington State has experienced population growth that has resulted in human
development of prairie regions. This development creates interruptions in the pocket
gopher’s habitat that results in the creation of edge effects that contribute to habitat
fragmentation and possibly to species extinction. Extinction rates for species residing
specifically in prairie landscapes are highest for the species that are rare, or that require
large patches of unbroken habitat and have short distances between those patches, or

2

for species that have limited dispersal distances. It is also possible that small mammals
move differently in crossing unfamiliar habitat with different compositions of patch
structure and densities of wildlife, (Szacki 1991; Leach 1996). These habitat
constraints regarding movements of small mammals are especially true for fossorial
mammals1. Research findings regarding small mammals in fragmented prairie habitat
may have direct application to the T.mazama in Washington prairies. Immediate
research should be conducted to determine how the T.mazama is affected by habitat
fragmentation. These research findings regarding impacts to habitat should be included
in species management plans. Pocket gophers are a plastic species, capable of forming
subspecies easily. They are located primarily in regions with soil types capable of
providing adequate gas permeability and supporting a variety of forage. In general, the
genetic structure of gopher populations provides clear illustrations of genetic drift and
selection in determining general genetic population structures (Steinberg 1999).
Because of these particular biologic circumstances, gophers are also used in computer
modeling programs as examples illustrating controversial theoretical questions
pertaining to the genetic structure and origins of various populations, and for
experimentation with speciation theories within the discipline of evolutionary biology.
These modeling studies suggest gopher populations may be changing over time. These
studies may also indicate a need for additional research into the current genetic status of
this species in Washington because of the gopher’s inherent ability to form subspecies
Many general wildlife simulations seek to provide projections for management
that can be used in policy decisions. These models may seek to resolve habitat

1

Personal Communication: Rex E. Marsh. Specialist in Vertebrate Ecology Emeritus, University of
California, Davis.

3

fragmentation that has been created due to societal goals, predicting distinct movement
routes of wildlife, or gaining predictive power for management decisions, but they are
often using incomplete information regarding movements of wildlife. Models are also
created specifically featuring virtual gophers that are used to demonstrate benefits to
their surrounding environment regarding tunnel construction and seed germination
effects (Seabloom 2001). Although these projections are useful, they cannot provide
complete solutions (Pulliam 1988; Cornell 1992; Davidson 1998; Rapport 1998; Bain
2000; Ebenbach 2000; Ney-Nifle 2000; Abrams 2002; Frid 2002; Kokkoris 2002).
Modeled projections involving environmental conditions, movement of wildlife species
and population parameters often use data that also does not accurately reflect
dynamically changing environmental conditions which can lead to inaccurate
projections (Landres 1988; Hansen 1999; Steinberg 1999; Holmes 2001; Ludwig 2001).
In general, gophers are popular for virtual modeling and academic theorizing but
studies focusing on the actual biology, dispersal, habitat requirements, and the resultant
benefits to plants and soils in Washington prairies from the T.mazama gophers have
largely been ignored (Witmer 1996; Steinberg 1999).
Research must be conducted primarily concentrated on definitive biological and
genetic parameters of the T.mazama species. In the process of identifying the T.mazama
species, other sub-species will also be identified that will assist in prioritizing
management goals for the T.mazama species. When subspecies of gophers are
genetically identified, and this data is confirmed with standard skeletal measurements,
populations may be located, and inventories may be conducted. These methods for
gopher identification must be applied to all gopher populations in western Washington

4

to confirm the existence of the exact locations of the T.mazama species and to identify
and inventory all gopher populations starting with the known historic population
locations.
Collecting accurate data will involve a complete inventory of pocket gopher
populations, a complete mapping of gopher habitat, genetic identification of species and
sub-species, identifying diet and confirming physical habitat requirements. In addition,
this data must be incorporated into a management plan that addresses landscape and
habitat parameters on several different scales.
Once this accurate gopher inventory data is adapted to modeling programs, it
will be possible to create informed wildlife and land development policy so
Washington State prairies may be preserved and priority habitat may protected for the
T.mazama. In addition, once species identification is complete for the T.mazama, this
information may then simultaneously be incorporated within a landscape ecology
approach that addresses prairie ecosystem maintenance on large landscape scales and
small scales of biologic and habitat requirements. This landscape ecology approach
addresses a small-scale and large-scale systems perspective that must be incorporated
within policy decisions in order to provide maximum protection for the T.mazama
habitat and the larger ecosystem functions. It is only by these methods that adequate
policy can be created to identify and protect the T.mazama from extirpation.
Although there is limited initial data available on the T.mazama, this thesis will
as closely as possible, provide detailed biologic and habitat requirements of the
T.mazama, along with providing a complete discussion of genetic, environmental

5

conditions, social constraints, political concerns, and other factors that may limit the
gopher’s habitat and survival in Washington prairies.

6

Chapter 2

The Thomomys mazama in Washington prairies

Subspecies in Washington
Historically, more than 300 species and subspecies of pocket gophers have been
described starting in 1891 (Bailey 1915; Johnson 1960; Hall 1981), with several subspecies of T.mazama initially located in Western Washington. Historically the
T.mazama underwent more than twenty-two revisions from 1891 through 1954 and
they are among the most taxonomically diverse animals (Johnson 1960; Steinberg
1999).
Subspecies in Washington were listed as ; melanops, yelmensis, tacomensis,
couchi, glacialis, pugetensis, tumului, and louiei as late as 1996 (Dalquest 1944;
Witmer 1996). There is also evidence regarding gene flow between Yelmensis,
pugetensis and glacialis, with populations of pocket gophers persisting through a
process of extinction and subsequent recolonization, providing evidence of the
durability of this species (Steinberg 1999).
The T.mazama subspecies have a very close similarity to T. talpoides, the
northern pocket gopher that lives in higher altitudes and in the eastern portion of
Washington, that generally prefers sub-alpine habitat in Western Washington
(MacMahon 1989).

7

T.mazama gophers in the Puget Sound region of Washington State are restricted
to specific habitats primarily within the glacial outwash regions of prairies. Dalquest
believed that they did not occur in the woody areas or the openings on the sides of
prairies, however due to recent habitat fragmentations recent studies have noted their
presence in tree farms causing some concern among agricultural providers (Dalquest
1948; Witmer 1996).
Additional data representing gopher populations on several scales, and human
demographic data needs to be incorporated into management policy with the objective
of refining general understanding of the species, to a finer level of understanding that is
focused on preserving prairie habitat and the T.mazama species. With enhanced
biological and genetic data for the T.mazama and the incorporation of human
population demographics, surrounding Washington State prairies, management
strategies may be evaluated for the gopher species that are at risk of extirpation, and
alternative management strategies and landscape settings for prairie preservation may
be devised.

Habitat Locations of T.mazama
The T.mazama species is located in western Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California (Johnson 1960; Barnes and United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. 1973; Verts 1998). They are primarily located in lowland prairie regions
that have their glacial origins from the Puget lobe of the Continental Vashon Glacier.
Washington prairies have experienced impacts due to grazing, agriculture, military
activities, and fire suppression that has resulted in the subsequent growth of forests,

8

dividing them into several numerous isolated prairies. This has resulted in the
formation of isolated habitats that has contributed to the creation of several pocket
gopher subspecies (Dalquest 1942; Del Moral 1976; Drake 1998).
T.mazama gophers may be threatened with extinction as the prairies are
reclaimed by forests and as Washington State population and development activities
increase. Population growth has resulted in burn suppression in prairie regions.2 Lack
of wildfire may also be interrupting the landscape-scale biodiversity in prairie
ecosystems (Dalquest 1948; Kruckeburg 1991; Leach 1996).

2

Contemporary urban prairie environments experiencing wildfire may result in loss of homes and other
personal property that may inspire volunteer restoration efforts. House, F. (2001). "On Behalf of the
Wild: A Conversation with Gary Snyder." Ecological Restoration 19(4): 227-234.

9

Chapter 3

T.mazama Biology

Biological Parameters

For most species of pocket gophers, the young are generally born hairless with
the teeth not yet erupted, possessing short limbs. The early studies conducted on
T.mazama by Scheffler in 1938 lists the pocket gopher litter size as an average of five
young for the T.mazama in Olympia, Washington Puget Sound region (Hill 1934;
Scheffer 1938; Schram 1961; Marsh 1992).
Male T.mazama pocket gophers express dimorphism, where males are larger
than females. In general, the size of gophers is directly related to the local habitat where
the forage availability also determines population density (Steinberg 1999).
Ratios between sexes were nearly 1 to 1 in a 1996 study in lower Puget Sound.
It is known that low density populations have unitary sex ratios but this bias is
positively related to population density and with population increases, the ratio can be
increased to 4 : 1 with a bias toward females (Patton and Smith 1990 in Witmer 1996;

10

Steinberg 1999). This ratio may be a bias introduced by trapping techniques3.
Gestation of the T.mazama is thought to be 28 days, with the average number of
embryos equal to five (Scheffer in Dalquest 1948).
The pelage of T.mazama is rich in color, ranging from all black to yellowish
hazel on the dorsum with whitish tail and feet, although pelage is not sufficient to
identify differences in species (Verts 1998).
General mortality rates of T.mazama populations are high (between 50% and
80% annually). Maximum lifespan of gophers is 5 years although average lifespan is 1
to 1.5 years with mortality caused by weather conditions, predation, diseases and
parasites (Nevo 1979; Marsh 1992).
Young gophers disperse above ground, under cover of snow, or underground at
approximately 8 weeks. They can live temporarily in vegetation growing above ground
in tunnels made in the snow that provide considerable forage in winter (Ingles 1949;
Vaughan 1963; Barnes 1973; Nevo 1979; Marsh 1992). Dispersal distances for
gophers in similar environments to Washington prairies are noted as 900 feet for
T.bottae; and 785 and 2590 feet for T.talpoides. Dispersal has been documented as up
to 100 feet in snow tunnels for winter foraging for Thomomys monticola (Ingles 1949;
Aldous 1951; Vaughan 1963), but no specific recent estimates are available for
T.mazama.
The T.mazama has exclusive territories. During the yearly breeding season or
when the females are rearing young is the only time gophers interact with each other.
Plural occupancy of gophers is rare, with each gopher constructing a burrow just big

3

Personal Communication from Rex E. Marsh, Specialist in Vertebrate Ecology Emeritus, University of
California, Davis. May 6, 2003

11

enough for their size, although adults may share a common nesting site. Breeding
season is during the winter, possibly extending through spring, at low elevations. After
dispersal of the young, territories remain stable and the gophers live alone until the next
breeding season (Barnes 1973; Nevo 1979; Witmer 1996; Steinberg 1999).
Because the general biology of pocket gophers, it is possible to use this
information to assist in the formation of potential population estimates. However, these
estimates could possibly be inaccurate due to changing habitat conditions and other
factors regarding forage conditions, weather, disease, or predation.

Adaptation to Subterrian Niche, Speciation

Pocket gophers have no overlap in the fossorial (underground) niche that they
occupy, either between different individuals of the same gopher species, of between
different species of gophers in the same region. These factors result in fixation of
chromosomes, over time, which starts the process of speciation. Small habitat ranges
lead to competition for food for each individual and the species as whole. Limited food
resources will also produce small, subdivided populations that are semi-isolated and
territorially structured, with sex ratio thought to be density dependent. These
established territories, according to Nevo, become optimal areas of habitat, providing
population stabilization. Fluctuations in these established populations are regulated by
predation, parasites, disease or random factors (Nevo 1979; Reichman 1982).
Reichman observed that pocket gophers utilize a method of geometric spacing
much like constructing burrows out of building blocks, with burrows of males larger

12

than burrows of the females. Equal distances between branching points in the burrows
are generally used. Burrow construction requires tremendous energetic investment.
Pocket gopher will alter burrow length rather than alter spacing between spaces
between their neighbors, and seem to have a very sensitive awareness of spatial
distances, with burrows of males larger than that of females. Gopher burrows that are
vacated are rapidly reoccupied. Depth of burrows vary with temperature conditions,
with burrows deeper in hotter climates where the gophers adjust for an optimal
temperature regime (Nevo 1979; Reichmann 1982).
Pocket gophers have unique adaptations to soil conditions. Since the burrows
are sealed habitats, gophers must adapt to limited permeability to gasses such as oxygen
and carbon dioxide within the soil barrier, and the gophers own physiological
conditions involving facilitation of gas transport in their blood and tissues.
Gophers actively defend their burrow from intruders, although some species are
known to live compatibly with gophers in their burrows such as; deer mice, pocket
mice, kangaroo rats, voles, ground squirrels, although when two adults pocket gophers
are placed together they are known to fight viciously. Amphibian species such as the
Tiger salamander have also been found in pocket gopher burrows (Vaughan 1961;
Vaughan 1963; Barnes 1973; Hall 1981; Marsh 1992; Klaas 1998).

Limiting Factors
Because gophers are entirely dependent on environmental conditions of soil
permeability and forage availability, and they possess inherent territorially and limited
mobility they are vulnerable to extirpation. These territory parameters, and quality and

13

quantity of food sources, all determine carrying capacities of gophers. These specific
biological limiting factors for the T.mazama gophers are critical for managers to
incorporate in conservation policy specifically for prairie habitat.
Often relocation of pocket gophers appears to be a possible solution when
habitat becomes irreparable because of construction activities or gophers are causing
damage to agricultural crops and trees, but the process of relocation can create survival
problems for the species. Gophers expend a large energetic investment when creating
new burrows and during the process of constructing burrows, gophers are exposed to
increased predation and disease. There may also be potential difficulties of introducing
inherently territorial gophers to new habitat, because gophers are known to fight
aggressively when placed in close proximity. They also have poor thermoregulation
properties and may suffer impacts from temperature extremes. Pocket gophers have
evolved and developed sub-species adapted to specific soil conditions that possess
acceptable gas permeability characteristics in the soil and forage conditions. There is a
lack of knowledge regarding successful translocations of fossorial species, and when all
the specific biological limiting factors for this species of concern are evaluated,
relocation of gophers will not be a viable consideration.

14

Chapter 4

Genetics

Creation of Subspecies
Historically, gopher subspecies were thought to be caused by depth of prairie
soil, size of prairie stones, and small divisions in soil and vegetation. This has since
been verified by several recent studies (Dalquest 1944; Cox 1990; Steinberg 1999).
In 1944, Dalquist thought that the origins of the T.mazama were the results of
migrations of the T.mazama from the south and east areas of Washington, and that they
formed isolated populations based on habitat and soil conditions (Dalquest 1944). E.K.
Steinberg’s work identifying the genetic code of the T. mazama has revealed vital
information regarding this species in 1999, but until then the original work in 1944
from Dalquist was the most recent biological study of the species (Dalquest 1944;
Witmer 1996; Verts 1998; Steinberg 1999). This recent discovery of the genetic
origins of T.mazama revealed true origins of this species as being through population
introductions from the northern expansion of the Pleistocene glaciations in the Olympic
Mountains. This resulted in establishment of colonizations of T.mazama in the glacial
outwash prairies (Steinberg 1999).
Pocket gophers of the genus Thomomys comprise one of the most plastic
groups of North American mammals (Dalquest 1944; Hall 1981; Smith 1988; Steinberg
15

1999). Until 1998, according to Land Mammals of Oregon, it was commonly believed
that “disjunct populations (of T.mazama) were even found in the Olympic mountains”
(Verts 1998) but recent taxonomic revision from Steinberg’s work using DNA from
the mitochondrial portion of the cell. This specific method of genetic identification
processing is referred to as MtDNA processing. The recent taxonomic identification of
the gopher has reclassified the T.mazama species as having its genetic origins in
California, from the T. Bottae group (Steinberg 1999). MtDNA studies have been very
effective for determining the origins of animal populations. The Steinberg study also
confirms that the Olympic Mountain region species is a distinct species, not originating
from T.mazama, but from T. melanops, a species that survived local glaciation
(Steinberg 1999).
The origins of the T.mazama species are an important discovery, illustrating the
ability of this species to adapt to its environment and its need for maintaining this
specific habitat in the glacial outwash lowland prairies on Washington for its survival.
In general, it is thought that gophers adapt to their individual habitat by continually
genetically evolving, responding to specific environments by incorporating
thermoregulation properties that in part, involves increased circulation to their feet and
tails (McNab 1966).

Western Washington Populations

The Shelton Washington pocket gopher populations observed by Scheffler in
1938 appeared to have combinations of cranial features that are different from other

16

species in the region, and as appearing only on the “…open lowland prairie area in the
vicinity of the type locality bordering inlets of Puget Sound and of Hood Canal….” A
specific location of this population was also published in 1955 as “…four miles north
of Shelton, Mason County, Washington…” in The Survey of North American Recent
Mammals by the United States National museum (Miller 1955). The unique genetic
differences of this population in Shelton, Washington were later confirmed by
Steinberg’s 1999 genetic analysis (Scheffer 1938; Steinberg 1999).
Techniques are available for identifying the T.mazama to species and advanced
genetic techniques are available for identifying populations. These tools should be used
in Washington prairies where they can assist in positive identification of the T.mazama
species. These genetically confirmed populations within Western Washington would
undoubtedly confirm habitat locations and affirm the need for specific habitat
protection within different prairie regions of Western Washington. This data will also
assist in habitat protection by identifying populations that should receive priority
conservation consideration.
The T.mazama pocket gophers of Washington have experienced geographical
isolation due to their habitat on glacial outwash prairies, contributing to a large number
of subspecies. This has caused subjective speculation and adds controversy regarding
which of these species should be recognized nomenclaturally (Hall 1981). Adding to
this controversy, genetic tests may be necessary to identify the T.mazama because
species identification of the T.mazama and the T.talpoides are largely indistinguishable
from external characteristics (Barnes 1973).

17

Genetic Identification of Subpopulations

Translocated genes in the T.mazama species reveal a single mitochondrial to
nuclear translocation event occurred before T.talpoides and T.mazama split into
separate lineages. (Steinberg 1999). The cytochrome b process of genetic processing is
a technique especially useful in identifying rodent populations (Maulk 1999; Spradling
2001). Three major subspecies in Washington have been recently identified by
identifying Cytochrome b genetic analysis of allele characteristics. This discovery
replaces the six classifications that were originally based on morphological features that
were thought to occur (Dalquest 1944; Steinberg 1999).
Genetic studies are especially useful in determining aspects of spatial structure
and variation in gopher populations. This is because gophers do not disperse over long
distances; they occupy fixed positions in space, and occupy defined home ranges that
occur in resident populations of varying density and size due to frequently dividing
populations, with added characteristics of territoriality and low vagility (Nevo 1979;
Steinberg 1999).
Technology exists for identifying the genetic origins of gopher populations and
for identifying sub-populations. These tools should be incorporated into management
strategies as a partial solution. These analyses will provide technical data that will assist
in insuring conservation of this species. Confirming these genetic studies for all gopher
populations in Washington prairie habitats is imperative to identify sub-species for
management purposes.

18

Chapter 5

T.mazama Skeletal Identification

General identification of rodent species involves skeletal measurements,
specifically the skull (Dalquest 1944; Tryon 1951; Johnson 1960; Livezy 1979; Hall
1981; Rensberger 1983; Brylski 1985; Smith 1988). Members of the Thomomys group
can be positively identified by their slender cranial rostrums where the bases of the
skull are not as divergent as other species and the base of the rostrum is broader on the
dorsal surface and different in function and spatial organization from other species
(Thaeler 1980; Hall 1981). Skull differences are in many cases more similar for
T.mazama and T.talpoides than other subspecies of gophers (Johnson 1960).
Identification of the T.mazama species is made by observing a lack of a sphenoidal
fissure in the cranium, and a wider flange extending posteriorly and ventrally at the
angle of the mandible. These differences now separate them from other species where
they were included for many years (Johnson 1960; Verts 1998).
Ageing of the T.mazama is conducted by cross sectioning teeth (mandibles) that
have been stained with Papanicoloau (Harris) Hematoxylin .and imbedded in paraffin
blocks where adhesion lines, or darkly stained lines in the bone may be detected with
microscopic examination (Livezy 1979).

19

A longer thinner baculum (penis bone) measuring 22 to 31mm has also been
determined as a feature of the T.mazama used to definitely identify this species,
including the identification of juveniles from other species (Johnson 1960; Livezy
1979; Hall 1981; Witmer 1996; Verts 1998).
These identification methods for gopher populations involving skeletal
identification procedures should be used in conjunction with genetic testing to confirm
gopher subspecies and to construct population estimations for conservation of the
species.

20

Chapter 6

Habitat

The T.mazama appears above ground for brief periods for tunnel construction
and grazing outside their tunnel openings. Larger areas mostly found in deeper burrows
are used for nest and food storage areas. Tailings from the burrow systems of pocket
gophers are “fan shaped” piles of earth instead of the more conical shaped mounds
produced by moles. Side tunnels off the main runways, are used as exits off the main
runways and for soil depositaries, debris storage, and excess food storage (Scheffer
1938; Miller 1948; Aldous 1951; Barnes and United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. 1973; Marsh 1992; Marsh 1992; "Inventory Methods for Moles and
Pocket Gophers" 2001).
The depth of gopher burrows range from a few inches to more than 5 or 6 feet.
It is common to find several nest chambers where they forage and store food, and
deposit waste. In a study of gopher damage to forested areas in Washington, they were
found at depths of 4 to 18 inches below the ground (Barnes 1973; "Inventory Methods
for Moles and Pocket Gophers" 2001).
Gophers may have natural fluctuations in populations and seasonal periods of
inactivity with no visual sign of burrow construction (Aldous 1957; Laycock 1957).
Local abundance of T.mazama is limited to the size of soil patches and to available
food resources (Dalquest 1944; Steinberg 1995; Steinberg 1996; Steinberg 1999).

21

Gophers live in a closed microhabitat underground where soil porosity is critical to the
gopher habitat (Barnes 1973). All requirements regarding diffusion of gases must be
met within a closed burrow system. Gophers are thought to be limited in their
distribution in soils with high clay content because of their limited ability to allow gas
diffusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Larger gopher species require more sandy soil
and avoid heat by digging deeper burrows, where smaller species are located in
marginal shallower soils. Sizes in gophers are a direct adaptation to the soil types in
their environment (McNab 1966). These discoveries confirm the importance of
maintaining specific habitat conditions for gophers.
In general, the geographic range of gophers is affected by characteristics of the
physical environment, although different species of gophers have an apparent tolerance
to higher moisture content in soils, possessing the ability to adapt to edaphic conditions
(Kennerly 1959). The way a gopher adapts to rocks in the soil depends on soil moisture
conditions. If the soil is dry, gophers will avoid large rocks more than they will in
moist soil conditions (Hansen 1968). The gopher may provide little above ground
evidence of mounding activity when the soil is dry, however they still may be present.
Increased soil temperature and decreased soil moisture, results in soil being deposited
in unused upper tunnels and not being brought to the surface (Laycock 1957).
No research exists for specific limitations that T.mazama populations may have
for gas exchange properties. Without existing research into gas exchange and moisture
requirements of the T.mazama habitat, successful translocation of this species may be
in doubt.

22

Chapter 7

Diet of the T.mazama

The T.mazama gopher prefers to live in cleared areas with no overstory cover
where in general, they seem to adapt its dietary needs to the environment. In shrubgrasslands, soils occupied by pocket gophers appear to contain fewer rocks, usually
where forbs are found (Hansen 1968). Gophers prefer grasses and forbs4 in the spring
and summer, preferentially choosing them when they are the most succulent (Myers
1964; Burton 1978; Cox 1989). In general, pocket gophers are root feeders. They will
also feed on the cambium layer of roots, and generally not on grasses, although there
are exceptions5 . A 1998 study indicates that gophers will leave sites where there is a
reduced dicot6 availability, indicating that there is a level of dicot intake necessary for
optimal reproduction and fitness, although more study should be conducted to

FORB: broad-leaved herbaceous plant: any broad-leaved herbaceous plant that is
not a grass, especially one that grows in a prairie or meadow
as defined by MSN dictionary on the World Wide Web at:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=forbs

4

5

Personal Communication: Rex E. Marsh, Specialist in Vertebrate Ecology Emeritus, University of
California, Davis, May 6,2003

6

DICOT: plant with two leaves at germination: a flowering plant that produces two seed leaves
(cotyledons) when it germinates and whose subsequent leaves have a network of veins. Most
herbaceous plants, trees, and shrubs are dicotyledons. Subclass Dicotyledonae. Also
called dicot Reference MSN Dictionary:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=dicot

23

determine the actual mechanism by which the population wide density is altered
(Rezsutek 1998).
The T.mazama in south central Oregon has included ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) as a minor component of its diet. Diet preferences may also change with
seasonal fluctuations, with gophers generally preferring the most succulent foods
available (Burton 1978). This may indicate that as the natural prairie habitat of the
T.mazama in Washington prairies is slowly eliminated and they are forced into
marginal regions, their diet may also include roots of trees. This situation has the
potential of placing gophers in direct conflict with humans who consider the gopher’s
pests when they cause damage to tree nurseries and home gardens.
In a 1996 study near the Olympia airport, all the gophers in two sites identified
as T.mazama were feeding in the (Tsuga hererophylla) vegetation zone (Franklin and
Dryness 1973 in Witmer 1996), where the most common tree species is the Douglas Fir
(Pseudosuga). The sampling sites in this study were on the Olympia Airport grounds
and a nearby tree orchard. The actual adaptability of the diet of the T.mazama in
Washington prairies requires research to identify how susceptible this species is to
extirpation and how adaptable they are to dietary constraints.

24

Chapter 8

Damage to Crops

Along with research indicating beneficial effects to plants, there has been
extensive research conducted on controlling gopher populations. Pocket gophers are
considered a major pest due to damaging agricultural crops, trees, and field machinery
(Dalquest 1948; Barnes 1973; Marsh 1992; Whitmer 1999).
Several studies in Washington have been conducted regarding damage control,
gopher monitoring and trapping techniques of the T.mazama and the T. Talpoides
species in timber plantations, because of the damage these species has caused to timber
crops (Marsh 1984; Hartwell 1988; Engleman 1999; Engleman 1999). Poisoning with
toxic baits and trapping are the favored methods of gopher population control.
Specifically strychnine is used, although it has been shown that the T.mazama, and
other gopher species can acquire a high tolerance to strychnine poisoning (Barnes 1973;
Lee 1990; Marsh 1992; Marsh 2001).
Pocket gophers in general, are a major hindrance to reforestation in the Western
United States, probably injuring more conifer seedlings than all other animals
combined (Witmer 1996). Herbicides (2-4-D) have been used in experiments for
gopher control, by eliminating their major food sources. These experiments have shown
some success, but have been largely inconclusive. Adequate methods within these
25

studies were not used to demonstrate if the cause of death was herbicide poisoning, or
starvation due to reduced forage (Keith 1959; Tietjen 1967). Later studies confirmed
that specific behavior factors of the gopher combined with vegetative control may also
adversely affect the gopher’s diet, and decreased populations are likely to result (Burton
1978; Tunberg 1984). Some experiments have been conducted by applying
strategically timed applications of herbicide that were thought to ultimately increase
Ponderosa pine seedling (Pinus ponderosa) and decrease northern gopher populations
(Engeman 1998). But overall, when herbicides are used, gopher habitats are not
eliminated, they are only effectively modified. Attempts at controlling gophers by using
herbicides effect the entire ecological community (Marsh 1984).
Alternative biologic control or integrated pest control methods such as
increasing the presence of owls has not been effective for controlling pocket gopher
populations. Current research has identified several possible solutions for gopher
population control representing non-lethal methods of population and damage control
where they still may provide benefit soils and plants within prairie regions (Marsh
1998; Whitmer 1999).
Successful research has been conducted in controlling fertility in mammals with
the use of chemical fertility suppressants, such as the wild horses in the Prior Range.
Research may also possibly be indicated regarding use of chemosterilants or
antifertility chemical agents for rodent control (Marsh 1986; "Wildlife Fertility Control:
Fact & Fancy" 2000; "Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the
Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range" 2002).

26

Another method of maintaining populations where they are needed for prairie
maintenance may involve genetic research into the specific types of trees that are
resistant to pocket gopher damage control. Methods may also be developed regarding
barrier control methods such as impermeable fencing, to protect desired agriculture
areas and tree plantations (Marsh 1984; Salmon 1990; Marsh 1991).
Alternative methods exist for controlling gopher populations rather than fatally
poisoning with strychnine. Ultimately the most effective way to control gopher species
is by basing control measures on ecological principles (Barnes 1973). To maintain the
positive effects that gophers provide to prairie environments, more research is indicated
regarding developing alternative methods. These alternative methods may consist of
applying chemosterilants and research into the genetic engineering of plant species and
investigating methods of barrier control.

27

Chapter 9

Methods of Trapping Gophers – and Alternatives

Researching gopher populations will require acquiring expertise in applying live
trapping methods to gain adequate population estimates. Primary methods for
performing census counts of gophers include presence/absence methodologies and
relative abundance direct observance methods. For absolute abundance studies, markrecapture is conducted ("Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gophers" 2001;
Glennon 2002).
Detecting gophers in natural habitat may be conducted by creating holes that
open up the gophers burrow above suspected tunnels. Openings created in these tunnels
may be closed within a few minutes to 48 hours providing possible population
estimations (Barnes 1973; Marsh 1992; Witmer 1996).
Alternative trapping methods include track tubes, which indicate presence of the
animal by indicating footprints left on a track surface inside the tube, reducing handling
of gophers (Glennon 2002). Live trapping is not without risk, it is possible for pocket
gophers to perish in cold weather in live traps if not provided with a food and warmth
source because of gophers poor thermoregulation properties (Howard 1951; Nevo
1979).

28

Translocation of the T.mazama

Suggested methods of T.mazama control may include moving populations
artificially. The only study located regarding reintroducing rodents to new habitat
involved one successful translocation of ground squirrels. This method allowed time for
them to acclimatize in one cage to their the new environment (Salmon 1981). These
methods have not been used for pocket gopher translocation and it doubtful that this
method used for translocating squirrels will be useful for pocket gophers. In general,
the T.mazama prefers a constant solitary environment. They have a poor tendency to
regulate temperature and there are unknown factors surrounding actual biologic
requirements regarding soil conditions and forage opportunities that are needed for the
T.mazama. The T.mazama species is listed as a threatened species and should not be
possibly further threatened by translocation activities, and they may have a tendency to
fight when placed together. Although new construction does threaten T.mazama habitat,
such as may be now being experienced by the T.mazama population at the Olympia
airport, protecting original habitat in Washington prairies is a preferred option over
translocating the T.mazama. To date, there has been no research on translocating the
T.mazama gopher. Research is indicated regarding translocation of gophers when their
habitat is irreparably damaged from human construction and development activities.

29

Chapter 10

Benefits to the Ecosystem from Gophers

Historically, early scientific findings regarding mound building by gophers
indicated that it was the primary cause of soil erosion, but additional research indicated
that the true cause of erosion was partially caused by overgrazing, and not entirely
attributed to gopher mounds (Scheffer 1938; Ellison 1946; Hansen 1968). Pocket
gophers live underground almost exclusively, appearing above ground occasionally.
The claws and forefeet and occasionally the incisor teeth conduct digging of tunnels
that appear geometrically spaced in straight paths and equidistant from its neighbors
(Hall 1981; Hafner 1982; Reichmann 1982).
Although mound sizes are different within various gopher species, the gross
shape of the mounds is the same consisting of a fan shaped or conical mound with
plugs to the side of the main opening or an unplugged opening. In regions of rocky soil
gophers create beds in circular patterns that have a higher proportion of perennials
when compared to the overall landscape (Hafner 1982; Cox 1989).
Pocket gophers create beneficial impacts to affect ecosystem processes over a
variety of spatial and temporal scales. Table 1 shows a general description of the effects
to plants caused by pocket gophers in short and long term periods in prairie ecosystems.
Backfilling and soil deposits from gopher burrowing activities may also affect
ecosystem structure as much as surface mound building. Most digging activity occurs
in the late fall and early winter when rains have softened soil that stimulate the

30

germination of annual plants (Miller 1948; Richens 1966; Mielke 1977; Anderson
1987; Cox 1990; Huntly 1991).
Pocket gophers influence the plant community in two ways; consumption of
selected dicots and forbs, or by altering the aboveground production of biomass or
abundance of several plant species (Spencer 1985; Huntly 1991; Rogers 2001).
Gophers also generate small scale edge effects as well as short-term and long term
effects to plant communities within prairies, that create beneficial effects for the entire
plant community (Vaughan 1961; Reichman 1982; Williams 1986; Huntly 1991;
Rezsutek 2000).
Edge effects to plant communities are explained in a study by Reichman who
illustrates this concept by providing an example of trees by the edge of a clearing. The
trees at the edge of the clearing grow tall in response to continuous sunlight but their
neighbors experience a shortened stature due to a shading effect which provides trees
farther in the forest as with additional sunlight, providing for increased growth. This
creates as Reichman describes a “…competition-induced wave of biomass….” Pocket
gophers provide this effect to prairie ecosystems systems by creating a sharp edge
effect from their soil deposits above ground. The effect directly over a 10cm burrow
has an effect at least 1m wide (0.5 on each side of the burrow). This creates positive
affects on prairie soils, because in the gopher’s process of mound building, stable
aggregates in prairie soils that retard mineralization rates are enhanced (Reichman
1993; Klaas 1998).
Small patches of soil exposed by gophers create a small microhabitat that is
different in soil content and biomass from the surrounding areas. This can affect

31

patterns of plants and animals in the ecosystem by providing a greater range of sites for
seed germination and growth. These effects are similar to features found in long-term
development of mima mounding in prairies. A well accepted theory is that the mima
mound soil formations are caused by gophers (Nikiforoff 1941; Scheffer 1947; Price
1949; Scheffer 1966; Del Moral 1976; Mielke 1977; Cox 1984; Cox 1989; Inouye
1997). However, there has also been some doubt regarding whether gophers actually
did cause mima mounds phenomenon (Nikiforoff 1941; Scheffer 1947; Scheffer 1966;
Del Moral 1976).
During a recent study of a tallgrass prairie in Iowa that measured the effects of
gopher burrow building over time, it was determined that concentrated effects to prairie
ecosystems were less than 8m, in 1 to 2 weeks. After 3 to 4 weeks, this effect shifts in
location, resulting in clustered patterns of disturbance that measure less than 20 meters
over two years. Pocket gopher mounds within fields with established plant communities
often provide germination opportunities for new plant growth where even this small
scale disturbance to grassland prairies effects grassland communities through its effects
to individual plant species (Hobbs 1987; Gibson 1989; Davis 1995; Klaas 2000;
Rezsutek 2000; Rogers 2001; Ostrow 2002).
Initial research regarding gopher mounding activity on serpentine grassland
communities have indicated that some grasses are dominant over other grassland
species on gopher mounds, due to lower micronutrients in the soil. As these elevated
levels of micronutrients decrease, the likelihood of potential invasive species is thought
to be decreased. Additional research indicates that survival of plants have similar
survival potential on or off a gopher mound, but shoots on the gopher mounds that did

32

survive grew larger and created many more seeds than control plants in control plots
(Koide 1987; Reichman 1988). The soil from gopher mound tailings differ in nutrient
content from the top layer of prairie soil, providing a higher total nutrient for plants
around gopher mounds, where gopher mound soil forms aggregates which assist soil
condition in less than two years (Spencer 1985).
More research is needed regarding the short-term and long-term effects to plant
species in Washington State prairies that are generated from gopher’s activities.
Research topics that could be considered include how reproduction and food habits may
be interpreted by soil conditions and precipitation rates. Competitive exclusion, niche
packing, and competitive exclusion are also important research considerations.
Observations must also be performed on a large-scale with long-term studies, which
include latitude and gradient, site fertility, climate, and not solely in comparing species
diversity which may introduce faulty indices (Bandoli 1981; Hobbs 1987; Koide 1987;
Huntly 1988; Huntly 1991; Clark 1998; Symstad 2003 et al.).
To date, no such study of the T.mazama habitat has been completed at these
scales, but one long-range study of cultivation and grazing had been conducted in
California indicated that in nitrogen rich soils where gophers are present, there is a
long-term improvement in increases of grass species and forbs providing food for the
gopher populations (Stromberg 1996).
Research indicates that gophers provide valuable benefits to soil conditions and
for maintaining prairie environments. Accurate data for the T.mazama regarding smallscale habitat parameters of diet, habitat and dispersal parameters, as well as data

33

representing long-term changes over time to gopher habitat are critical for this species
at risk.
It is possible to predict soil disturbance rates with the only constraints being soil
condition, and the size of the gopher. Soil deposition rates may be calculated if the size
of the gopher and the energy efficiency in the soil is known (Andersen 1982; Anderson
1987; Cox 1990; Cox 1991). These calculations are based on above ground soil
deposits from gophers, although significant soil deposits occur belowground (Andersen
1982; Cox 1990).
In summation, gophers are proven effective agents assisting seed germination,
and soil aeration. They are invaluable in maintaining the diversity of prairie
environments. Their presence in prairies should be maintained and their species
protected. Biological data involving the T.mazama and the prairie environment should
be collected, monitored, and used within predictive models. The data collected for
habitat protection should be long-range for local prairies on a small scale. For prairie
conservation in the entire region, a larger scale of data should be collected that will
involve protection of general biodiversity. To maintain prairie environment, long-term
research should be conducted on Washington prairies to determine the actual
contribution of the T.mazama gopher’s effects to soil, and large and small landscape
effects to plants. These effects should be given priority consideration for inclusion in
conservation policies for protecting habitat for the T.mazama.

34

Chapter 11

Gophers and the Benefits to Soil

Previous studies regarding tunneling energetics (or amount of energy expended
by pocket gophers to create a tunnel) are referenced to a single point in time, with little
predictive ability to infer connections between system dynamics and relationships to
environmental conditions. However there may be a pattern linking geometric features
of tunnel construction regarding length between mounding activity, with food resource
levels and the length of tunnels (Reichmann 1982; Anderson 1987; Thorne 1990).
Tunneling energetics in pocket gophers is high. The timing of burrow construction may
be associated with activities that make movement easier in the tunnel system,
coinciding with periods when optimal soil moisture levels increase soil friability that
reduce the energy required for tunnel construction or at times when foraging activities
are at an optimum (Miller 1948; Bandoli 1981). No data is available on the effect of
food habits or reproduction on burrowing activity in pocket gophers (Bandoli 1981).
It may be imperative to apply findings of these specific burrow energetic studies
when conducting research into T.mazama habitat, or if habitat is damaged and research
is conducted into translocation of gophers.
Little literature exists on the soil movement capability of T.mazama, but the
closest relative of T.mazama is a prodigious soil mover. After the eruption of Mt. St.

35

Helens, the Northern pocket gopher T.talpoides had covered 2% of the tephra7 surface
with old soil, providing soil for recolonization of damaged habitat for other species All
samples from the Mt. St. Helens study were obtained above the 1000m in the Pacific
silver fir and Mountain Hemlock zones (Anderson 1987; Crisafuli 2003).
It has been shown that meadow voles avoid areas with soil disturbances with
resulting increased opportunity for seedling germination. This may result in enhanced
biomass, leading to distinct changes in the plant community especially in communities
where perennial grasses may limit availability of sunlight. This is important to the
prairie habitat because the voles tendency to avoid soil disturbance will ultimately
enhance species richness, abundance and plant community heterogeneity (Klaas 1998).
Pocket gophers also create an indirect effect on the above ground insect
populations because they affect the overhead plant cover that attracts insects. In a 2002
study it was determined that gophers selectively removed plants. When above ground
areas were sprayed with insecticide the gophers fed disproportionately in areas of nonaphid insects (Ostrow 2002).
Uniform or clumped distribution of gopher burrows may provide variation to
the core species on the prairie, providing soil for secondary vegetation, primarily for
annuals, and they also may be the origin of North American prairie soils (Mielke 1977;
Spencer 1985; Reichman 1993). The overall effect to the plant community depends on
the rate of mound formation, the rate of the succession process and the types of plants
present (Spencer 1985). Gopher mounds have also been found to increase
approximately 5.5% in overall primary production in shortgrass prairies where the
Tephra definition:7 volcanic fragments: solid material ejected explosively from a volcano, for

example, ash, dust, and boulders, Reference:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=tephra

36

increased production more than offsets the newly exposed areas (Grant et.al 1980 in
Huntly 1988). Yearly rainfall variance has a significant effect on plant species within
the prairies, and this also affects movements of gophers on the prairies (Hobbs 1991).

37

Chapter 12

Prairie Habitat and the Pocket Gopher

The T.mazama Pocket Gopher in Washington Prairies

Although extensive research has been conducted regarding effects of gophers to
soils in prairie environment, more research is indicated in Washington prairies
specifically aimed at tunneling energetics of gophers and obtain appropriate forage and
soil rate deposition with resultant effects to plants and animal species. The beneficial
effects from gophers to soil and to prairie regions cannot be disputed. Research should
be conducted on Washington prairies to measure specific effects from the T.mazama to
plants and species and this research should be monitored on a long-term basis.
Incorporating this data analysis into a long term planning agenda is imperative when
estimating impacts to the natural prairie landscapes. This method will greatly assist in
planning conservation measures for maintaining the prairie environments

38

Historic Habitat of the T.mazama

The first complete inventory of all pocket gopher subspecies in Washington
State prairies was conducted in 1915 by the United States Biological Survey (Bailey
1915). The nationwide gopher habitat study conducted is still reasonably accurate to
this day because of the consistent soil conditions within prairie environments that
Washington prairies provide, and the remarkable detailed observations made regarding
gopher biology and habitat. Unfortunately, there have been severe impacts to original
T.mazama habitat since the 1915 studies were conducted.
Dalquist and Scheffler conducted the next comprehensive pocket gopher study
in 1944. They listed the Prairies of Washington and sub-species of pocket gophers
living in the prairies. A comprehensive listing of Washington prairies are listed found
in Table 2.
A new subspecies of gopher was added to Dalquist’s previous list of subspecies
named in 1949 as Thomomys talpoides louiei, named by Albert Moore of Portland
Oregon (Branch of Wildlife Research office of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service), after the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Crown-Zellerbach
Corporation; Mr. Louis Bloch. These pocket gophers resided in the Crown Zellerbach
tree farm 12 miles NNE of Cathlamet at an altitude on 2,500 feet in Wahkiakum
County, Washington (Gardner 1949). Subsequent studies such as the Smithsonian
Institutions North American Recent Mammals, built upon work from Bailey and
Dalquist (Miller 1955; Steinberg 1995; Steinberg 1996; Steinberg 1999).

39

Genetic studies conducted by Steinberg in 1999 would ultimately update the
taxonomy into three major subspecies of the pocket gopher in western Washington
State, and reveal the origins of the sub-species using genetic processes that also
ultimately confirms skull measurements of the T.mazama species (Smith 1988;
Steinberg 1999).
Historic and contemporary regional data is available to identify possible habitat
regions of the T.mazama and other gopher subspecies in Washington State. More
research should be conducted to inventory the T.mazama and other specific subspecies
in Washington to determine population dynamics and other beneficial effects to the
environment and to surrounding prairie regions.
To date no specific scientific studies regarding biotic or population parameters
had been conducted on the gopher species Thomomys talpoides louiei in SW
Washington. Historically since 1915, this species was known as a separate subspecies
as identified though direct observation and skeletal identification. Recently Steinberg
has confirmed the genetic characteristics of this subspecies a separate species of pocket
gopher. This is a clear indication that it is possible to use current technology and
skeletal identification techniques together to positively identify gophers to subspecies
(Steinberg 1999). These findings should be used together regionally to confirm positive
identification of all gopher species. This genetic-skeletal process will provide data that
will be incorporated in the creation of a accurate conservation policy.
In summary, the T.mazama historical taxonomy and habitat requirements have
been studied in detail since 1915 although some studies may have been conducted in
the region earlier (Bailey 1915; Dalquest 1942; Miller 1955). In 1955, Miller and

40

Kellog determined that species in the Puget Sound region of Washington existed only
in specific regions in Washington, as far as they could determine. Steinberg and Witmer
verified these findings and confirmed these habitat locations in recent T.mazama
species (Steinberg 1996; Witmer 1996; Steinberg 1999).

41

Chapter 13

Current Habitat Studies

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Studies

Washington State Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have preliminary data indicating
the habitat of the T.mazama species through its Location Data and Predicted
Distributions study that utilized LANDSAT satellite data. This study conducted in 1997
found no T.mazama species on islands in Washington State, and listed current habitat
locations primarily the same as indicated in previous Dalquist and Scheffler studies.
The T.mazama gopher data in the Washington State Location Data study admits that
populations may be overestimated because of local exterminations, and that clear-cuts
that were included in the maps may be unsuitable or inaccessible to pocket gophers.
Accurate resolution of habitat at this scale is difficult, and some of the data indicated as
optimum habitat may be too shrubby or have unsuitable soil types. According to this
study, non-forested cover (except shrubland) was good habitat. When the study was
conducted, the satellite data used did not have adequate resolution to reliably
distinguish the “preferred native prairie” conditions from unsuitable non-forested
habitat. Optimum low elevation habitat was indicated as being within open undisturbed

42

tracts of meadows or prairies without conifer encroachment that included substantial
forage and loose soil adequate for burrowing. Ecoregions listed as core habitat include
the Puget Sound Douglas fir zones, Woodland/Prairie complex and Cowlitz River
zones, with the Western Hemlock zone as peripheral. The data indicates that nondisturbed land with no evidence of heavy cutting, grazing, or burning may have
optimum habitat for the T.mazama pocket gopher (Johnson 1997).
To create accurate maps, the landscape scale to be considered should guide the
method of collection of and data processing. Numerous scales need to be addressed
when mapping biodiversity and creating habitat maps, because maps are two or threedimensional representation of features that may vary over time. One habitat feature may
appear inconsequential at one scale for a species, but disastrous at another scale. It is
possible to delineate accurate habitat ranges using GIS software that assimilates
available landscape and biological data to create accurate habitat ranges for
ecologically sound land management or LANDSAT imagery remote sensing
applications. Once this data is obtained, it is possible to use it to represent an unending
number of spatial resolutions (Muchoki 1988; Mapping the Diversity of Nature 1994;
Hansen 1999).
Since this initial data was generated for pocket gophers in Washington State,
multi-scale data approaches have been applied to landscape management issues and to
environmental conditions as they change. It is imperative that investigations within the
data structure are also incorporated into landscape patterns to indicate changes that can
be measured over time for specific measurements (Frohn 1998). These measurements
may be used for delineating specific habitat locations of a species with limited dispersal

43

activity. In general, habitat locations for the T.mazama are currently located in prairie
regions of marginal habitat quality representing a variety of habitat locations in
developed urban areas and undeveloped areas where vast prairies once occurred
(Kruckeburg 1991).

GIS and the T.mazama in Washington

In order to observe T.mazama habitat on a smaller scale habitat than was used at
WDFW in 1997, and to accurately pinpoint habitat locations,. Habitat maps for the
T.mazama were then created using Geographic Information Systems software (GIS) to
determine if T.mazama species were residing only in the current prairie locations, or if
they were living in urban areas. Data for these illustrations were collected from readily
available on-line sources and from Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Natural Heritage section. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) ArcView software
was used to portray these local prairie regions. Data was collected from previously
published scientific documents regarding the origins of the T.mazama. Township,
Range and Section data obtained from Dalquist, Steinberg, and the Burke Museum in
Seattle Washington (Dalquest 1944; Steinberg 1996) were obtained to provide capture
locations of the T.mazama that represented historic habitat. Habitat maps were then
created for the T.mazama in Southern Puget Sound. They are illustrated in Appendix 13 Township Range and Section location data was converted to latitude and longitude

44

coordinates and reprojected through GIS 8 to create habitat points represented historic,
current and museum trapping locations. Current prairie and oak grassland land cover
regions as defined by Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Natural Heritage Program were then overlaid on Thurston County shape and plot maps
to create current and historic geographic habitat representations.
Overall, capture locations of the T.mazama in Western Washington indicate that
the gopher’s habitat is located within wide-ranging historic habitat boundaries. Land
that has been classified as existing Prairie fragments by the State of Washington DNR
does not represent historic or current capture locations for the T.mazama. Currently
capture locations as indicated by historic and current capture locations indicate that the
habitat for the T.mazama may occur in residential locations, and within urban areas,
and not within the land currently classified as prairie remnants. These initial habitat
maps provide detailed illustrations of past and present habitat locations that clearly
indicate that the T.mazama does not live in the mandated prairie locations as defined by
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Instead, they seem to live in areas
of unbroken land primarily found in prairie regions, such as airports, prison grounds,
bulb farms, tree plantations, and large stretches of unbroken private land. Shrinking
available habitat and the absolute requirement for acceptable soils for the T.mazama
brings them in direct conflict with human populations, prescribed land use practices and
local, regional, Federal, and State government regulations and political pressures. These
constraints may directly threaten their existence because of continued human
development in Washington State prairie regions.
8

A Township Range Section on-line converter was used to convert original data to latitude and longitude
coordinates. This data converter is located at: http://www.esg.montana.edu/gl/trs-data.html .
State Plane 1927 coordinates were then selected for viewing the reprojected data.

45

Further research is indicated to accurately identify these actual populations to
subspecies. Data should then be incorporated into the actual habitat locations within a
multi-scale planning regime that also incorporates environmental concerns and
parameters that indicate change over time for environmental modeling purposes. This
may assist in providing protection for this species of concern. These initial findings
indicate that due to impacts to Western Washington prairie habitat, protection measures
are indicated for the T.mazama. For additional information, refer to Appendix 1 through
Appendix 3.

46

Chapter 14

Field Observations - The Olympia Washington Airport

Anchor Environmental, L.L.C., recently conducted a survey of gopher habitat,
at the Olympia Washington airport at the request of the Port of Olympia, to determine if
suitable habitat would be present for gophers on the airport grounds if construction of a
new runway, called the Delta taxiway, and a new Helipad was built. The survey was
conducted June 29, July 2 and 3, 2002, with results indicating high frequency of
gophers in areas with soft soils and the presence of numerous herbaceous plants, with
an average of mounds at approximately two per square meter.
The survey indicated that there was some indication that gopher mounds may
stop where compacted soil areas begin, but that gopher mounds were still present on
airport grounds in areas with a higher density of gravel. Overall, the survey did not
discourage construction activity of a new runway or a helipad, but indicated that with
removal of an old road bed, loosening compacted soil, and adequate habitat restoration
in areas of construction, there would be adequate gopher habitat with moderate
colonization ("Pocket Gopher Survey, Olympia Airport" 2002).
This survey of gophers did not address biological realities of T.mazama
requirements that may be encountered by gophers during construction activities. There
was no provision as to how the T.mazama gophers would colonize the proposed new

47

areas or how many gophers may be threatened by construction activities. Airport
runway construction may compact the gophers underground burrows and force the
T.mazama aboveground. This would expose them to predation, interruption of seasonal
dispersal activities, and limit their underground foraging activities as they attempt to
build new burrows. Establishing new gopher colonies may require extensive tunneling
activity which may severely stress the gophers as they attempt to establish new
burrows.
Visual inspections of the Olympia Airport by A. Schmidt and C. Knudsen
during an on-site visit February, 2003 indicated that gophers were present on the
grounds at the west end. Airport personnel assisted these observations of gopher
habitat. New mounding activity to any extent was not noted at that time. When leaving
the site, there were additional observations of large frequent gopher mounds outside the
Olympia Airport grounds, indicating the possible presence of gophers in surrounding
State office grounds and industrial areas.
Occasionally, the T.mazama feed just within a short distance of the entrance of
their tunnel openings when they are above ground, or seasonally, possibly during
dispersing activities by the young once a year. At these times they are susceptible to
predators such as: weasels , coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), badgers
(Taxidae taxus), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), great grey owls (Strix
robulosa), barn owls (Tyro alba), hawks (Buteo spp.) and snakes (Tryon 1942; Howard
1951; Moore and Reid Elbert 1951; Barnes, United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. et al. 1973; Nevo 1979). Predation for gophers by the above predators has
been highest at times of subadult dispersal, usually occurring at limited distances when

48

the gophers are one to two months after birth, occurring shortly after weaning. (Nevo
1979).
The Optimal dispersal theory assumes that maximum fitness is achieved during
dispersal activities and is evidenced in short-term survival, and contributes to
survivorship of the gophers in the long run. The optimum proportion of young-of-theyear dispersers to new habitat areas is ultimately related to available habitat, local
carrying capacity, and optimal foraging range of the habitat (Nevo 1979). This theory
assumes that there is established habitat nearby for the young of the year dispersers.
It may be imperative that biological factors regarding predation and dispersal
are adequately addressed, when recommendations are made regarding habitat.
Destroying a colony of gophers by construction activities and then providing new
nearby habitat, may not allow for natural survival mechanisms of the species, or
guarantee that the gophers will be able to migrate successfully to utilize the new
habitat.
Generally, suitable gopher habitat is defined primarily by soil type and food
availability. Once territory has been established, most gophers remain sedentary
throughout their lives with only small boundary changes where their burrows may be
used continuously for up to three years (Nevo 1979).
New habitat for gophers may be expressed as a ratio of habitat generation time
to the time the habitat provides adequate food for harvesting (Nevo 1979). No
provision is indicated in the Olympia Airport study as to how new sources of food
would be supplied or what those sources would be, but a recommendation was made
regarding restoring the Olympia Airport grounds by “… seeding with prairie species…”

49

Some plant species naturally found on the Airport grounds are listed in the report, but it
is unclear which of these species would be seeded to restore gopher habitat. The Pocket
Gopher survey report states only that the newly restored habitat could be colonized by
gophers when the habitat was restored ("Pocket Gopher Survey, Olympia Airport"
2002). This newly seeded restored area may provide adequate habitat for pocket
gophers, although until food sources are established, this area may instead consist of a
population sink that contributes to the formation of metapopulations, which may further
threaten the T.mazama species.
Destroying habitat is unfortunate for gophers with possibly lethal consequences.
Habitat is difficult to replace because of spatial limitations in urban areas, and other
biological limitations such as territorial considerations, forage availability during
construction activities, and problems with predation.
It is imperative that for realistic protection of this species, policy must allow for
the gopher’s biological constraints and habitat requirements. In this example regarding
the Olympia Airport, difficulties may be experienced by all the T.mazama populations
in prairie regions in Washington that are undergoing environmental change due to
population expansion, burn suppression and construction activities. In addition, on
airport grounds, there are Federal rules specifically requiring clear runway areas that
may require chemical removal of forage items necessary for maintaining the T.mazama
populations. These Federal property mandates may come in direct conflict with
Washington State attempting to protect this species of concern, from the harmful effects
of herbicides.

50

Chapter 15

Prairie Restoration in Washington State

Sustaining Grassland Prairies
When considering habitat restoration for the T.mazama, the issue of available
forage is critical. Historically, burning prairies was performed by Native Americans to
preserve the natural grasses and maintain the prairies. Prescribed burns are invaluable
tools in protecting prairie habitat, and they should be conducted yearly or bi-yearly at
appropriate times to maintain the prairie ecosystem (Howe 1994; Howe 1995; Leach
1996; Howe 1999). It is also thought that pocket gophers may have relatively low
mortality to fire because of their burrowing capacities (Marsh 1984).
Generally, a few species of grasses dominate prairie landscapes. When the
prairie experiences a burn, new species are encouraged to grow, primarily new shoots
and forbs which is a vital food for the pocket gopher (Antos 1983). Burning prairie
environments may increase the possibility that the rate that seeds are trapped near
gopher mounds. As a result, this may increase the likelihood that gopher mounds act as
colonies for seed germination (Spencer 1985). Sustaining grassland prairie
environments also depends on successful introduction of alien plant species, or plants
that are not dominant in the landscape (Karl 1999).

51

The Nature Conservancy assists prairie conservation efforts by enlisting
extensive volunteer assistance regarding seed germination techniques. These techniques
require a majority of plant species for germination and conventional stratification
techniques, although some of these seeds have been difficult to germinate and the
techniques require refinement (Drake 1998).
Simulation modeling has been developed specifically to estimate gopher
population dynamics, effects to plant communities, and population parameters for the
T.mazama within fragmented habitats (Andersen 1982; Hobbs 1987; Steinberg 1999;
Seabloom 2001). There are also modeling techniques for effects to ecosystems
specifically created by gophers including spatio-temporal patterns of gopher mound
production measuring change over time within tall grass prairie ecosystems. These
techniques may be useful in measuring impacts occurring within Washington State
lowland prairie environments (Klaas 2000).
Within Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage
program, information regarding rare plants and other rare species is available that may
provide information for conservation planning protection for prairie landscapes. This
Natural Heritage Data is compiled from public and privately owned land, and it is used
primarily for local land use planning. It may serve as a major comprehensive source of
information for biodiversity conservation strategies that provides coverage across many
jurisdictions. State planning departments may use Natural Heritage data but if little
attention is given to biodiversity at a systems level, the Natural Heritage data may be
underutilized (Cort 1996). This data could be combined with modeling programs to
estimate future impact of prairie environments. This approach, along with conserving

52

gopher habitat and enlisting the assistance of volunteers, may indicate the best
combination of factors necessary for prairie conservation.

Multi-Scale Prairie Restoration Strategy

Management objectives generally focus on evaluating current knowledge and
evaluating competing values and interests between public and private objectives in
prairie environments. When managers take an ecosystem approach to define a
geographic space that focuses on ecosystem processes it takes the emphasis off of biota
and on to a systems approach (Yaffee 1999). Biota is an important consideration in
prairie ecosystems but a complete survey of biological and biogeographical resources
on a larger scale should also be conducted. This includes environmentally sensitive
areas, local scale, biotic, abiotic, geomorphic, hydrologic, wildlife, and cultural factors.
These larger scale environmental functions focus on regions of prairie landscape
environments. This large-scale approach is imperative in assisting in conservation
planning. In this way, landscape features may be evaluated on a larger scale, and also
linked to regional land use goals. This approach may be one good way to maintain
sustainable resource use. The ABC approach is explained in Table 3. It recognizes four
levels of analysis and mapping that are important in categorizing the steps in
conducting a large scale approach to landscape studies based on Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) using analysis of environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) to
create a sustainable approach to development (Nelson 1988 et.al.).

53

GIS is valuable method for creating maps that define habitat boundaries. It also
is an invaluable tool in communicating with the public and a potential tool for
involving all stakeholders by providing a visual representation to habitat parameters.
Spatial modeling of critical habitat, land development patterns, and alternative
development scenarios may be presented in a format easily understood by all
stakeholders. Often, when the public is dependent on a natural resource, they will often
ignore science based policy unless the policy is based on local knowledge of resource
use (Weeks 1997; Shindler 1999). GIS provides a visual aid that may assist in
obtaining local knowledge.
A modeling approach similar to the ABC approach was applied on several
scales for Summit County, Colorado that also used available information to create
landscape management forecasting predictions, including public and private land
(Theobald 2002). Additional recent studies approach a landscape ecology by also using
small-scale and a large-scale approaches that provide for maximum benefits to
biodiversity near nature reserves (Hansen 1999).
These examples of comprehensive approaches to land use policy incorporates a
large scale view for management that includes land boundaries for public and private
lands and also creates a detailed view of landscapes where land-planning decisions
may be made where all significant small scale habitat factors can be included. In prairie
environments, this large-scale approach would undoubtedly include large prairie
regions that prioritize regions of available habitat for the pocket gopher.
Traditionally, edge habitat includes greater habitat variability for wildlife,
leading to greater vegetative complexity. There are also many negative consequences

54

with edge habitats. They can lead to patchy habitat and isolation of wildlife. They are
difficult to predict and can result in dire consequences for the pocket gophers
depending on a optimum habitat consisting of unbroken prairie (Yahner 1988). Using a
large-scale approach and combining this approach with GIS, assists as a visual aid in
identifying habitat protection goals by identifying edge habitat.
Public policy in State and Federal agencies will include rare and endangered
species protection, which may also have direct relevance for species of concern. These
species protection goals may be achieved by land acquision, land trusts, investigating
land use patterns for conservation opportunities, and shifting funding priorities to take
advantage of rare species protection opportunities. However, land acquision also needs
to match the range sizes of the species, and the agency capacity that is necessary to
manage endangered species (Press 1996; Tenenbaum 2000; Ludwig 2001).

55

Chapter 16

Recommendations for Conserving Washington State Prairies
And Assisting in Protection of the T.mazama

Ecosystems Approach to Landscape Management

Mammal species are more vulnerable to extinction than birds (Soule and
Wilcox, 1980 in Muchoki 1988) and the potential for extinction of species on
grasslands is a serious concern. Once prairies damage has occurred, restoration may
take centuries (Schramm 1990 in Sampson 1994).
The T.mazama is a component of a larger ecosystem. Ignoring surrounding
ecological implications of the gopher’s central place in the prairie ecosystem will
weaken ecosystems, continue environmental degradation, and create permanent
extirpation of many species as well as the gopher.
Unless management adapts a multi-level approach applying available data
representing public and private land, and including biologic requirements of the
T.mazama and edge effects to this species in Washington prairie environments,
extirpation is a possibility. The niche management approach, or management with the

56

primary focus on managing ecosystem biota must be replaced with data from multilevels that include ecosystem processes (Samson 1994; Brown 1996).
Effective environmental managers must now possess skills in several disciplines
such as geography, economics, and political science. These changes in environmental
policy represent evolving social and environmental conditions that represent recent
developments in ecological and biological understanding. Changes in scientific
knowledge and within society have influenced the way policy is created. Policy is
increasingly being informed with applications from several disciplines such as
economics, ecology, and with applications from new technologies. Environmental
policy changes also are influenced by global change, different stakeholder value
systems, equity and social justice issues that may represent difficult management goals.
All these factors considered together emphasize the need for multi-scale management
(Mangel et.al. in Salwasser 1992; Beattie 1996; Ludwig 2001) Multi-scale
management objectives may be the best solution for the protection of prairie
ecosystems and for the subsequent protection of the T.mazama, as these regions
continue to experience impacts from human development activities.

Evaluating policy

When using a multi- scale approach to land management, it is important to
evaluate critically the data that is used. For example, many studies have contributed
extensive knowledge to species conservation, but when creating environmental policy
conservation specialists should thoroughly understand the specific applications of the

57

data being included in policy. For example, there are three factors to include when
considering genetic information.

1. Estimation: Because large errors can be associated with subsampling
populations and because inherent variability of random effects (i.e. genetic
drift), simple measures of genetic structure can not be applied at “face value”.
2. Interpretation: There are many alternative possible causes for any estimated
genetic structure (i.e. limited dispersal, historic population bottlenecks, and high
variation in population size). Therefore, using statistics of population genetic
structure (particularly statistics that assume equilibrium conditions) to
determined specific ecological details about species or populations is
problematical.
3. Application: Even if we have good estimates of genetic structure, it is not
immediately obvious how they can be practically applied (Steinberg, 1999).

Correctly identifying genetic population structures are aids in identifying gopher
populations and are an invaluable aid in conservation strategies although they in
themselves not the only tool that should be utilized by conservation managers. Without
the addition of accurate demographic data for T.mazama populations, understanding the
genetic structure of the species may only reveal partial insight that may not include all
parameters needed for conservation.
Obstacles to applying a landscape ecology approach for decision making within
State and Federal agencies may include conflicting permit regulations that specifically
pertain to air and water issues. There may also be a lack of understanding how to apply

58

regulations with public and regulatory agencies. Equally challenging is the process of
defining ecosystem management and watershed management (Brown 1996; Yaffee
1999). There are different interpretations of the terms environmentally sensitive
multiple use, an approach to resource management, and eco-regional management”.
Each of these approaches may emphasize different values, knowledge, and focus. The
environmentally sensitive multiple use approach, may observe an anthropocentric
perspective, the ecosystem approach could emphasize a biocentric view, and the
ecoregional management could place priority on an ecocentric view. These three
different views may represent a paradigm shift that may indicating change within
management policy (Kessler 1992, and Kimmins 1995 in Yaffee 1999). Awareness of
these different approaches may be important in evaluating a multi-scale approach to
Washington prairie landscapes and for the protection of the T.mazama.
Adding to the different approaches in evaluating environmental policy, there are
two main types of ecosystem classifications that define geographical data that are used,
namely, the Omernik, and Bailey systems that are used in many government
applications. These methodologies have an unintended negative effect of creating
disunity because they do not address ecosystem processes that cause change over time.
They primarily focus on mapping geographical space and the objects on that space in
that time, and do not allow for dynamic climatic conditions in the ecosystem. This
results in different kinds of ecosystem classifications in the same management category
(Lugo 1999). Major errors may occur if managers reach land management policy
decisions based on reaching a consensus by averaging different scientific positions
without understanding data classification systems (Ludwig 2001).

59

Another ecosystem classifications system currently being used is the Holdridge
Life Zone System, which includes data precipitation, and mean annual temperature
depicting climatic conditions for ecosystem function. This system has received some
criticism regarding life zone names that do not always coincide with observed
vegetation, its data classification does not consider the seasonality of the climatic data
parameters, and its’ classification systems are thought to classify only tropical systems,
however, this data classification may be a step in the right direction (Lugo 1999).
By becoming aware of different approaches to policy and data classification,
and using accurate landscape scales that include accurate landscape parameters, and
incorporating habitat boundaries and species, change may be possible on a local level
that offers protection to the T.mazama and its place in the Washington prairies. It then
may be possible to move along a continuum, and ultimately reach consensus by acting
conservatively and managing adaptively (Sampson 1994; Flather 1998; Shindler 1999;
Yaffee 1999).

Research Requirements

The T.mazama is a valuable species in Washington lowland prairies, causing
positive effects with plant and insect communities as well as contributing to the origin
of prairie soils. They affect plant communities in positive ways, allowing for the
germination of annuals and assist in gas transport and drainage in soils, necessary for
maintenance of prairie environments. Conservation plans should be created to protect

60

the T.mazama, because of the invaluable service they provide to the prairie
environment.
The habitat and dynamics of pocket gopher populations make them vulnerable
to extinction. Maintaining western Washington State prairie habitat and protecting the
T.mazama is an important goal for environmental managers. It is imperative that data is
collected on small and large scales representing short-term and long-term events in
prairie landscapes. Biological data must be collected regarding the life history and
limiting factors for the T.mazama. This data can be used to create a landscape systems
analysis that can be used within a GIS mapping format to compliment existing data
within Government agencies to delineate management areas that protect and conserve
the Washington lowland prairies.
It is thought that populations of pocket gophers persist through a process of
extinction and subsequent recolonization. Prairies in Washington are undergoing
destruction due to construction activities. Conducting the process of redefining
managements units within prairie regions could be critical to pocket gophers survival.
Genetic identification of gopher populations is important to identify the scale at which
genetic differentiation is manifested. These findings will reveal an accurate scale for
direct management efforts. These genetic findings may also have practical implications
for management by establishing or disproving that distinct populations are found in
different regions. Discovering the genetic origins of pocket gophers may also support
the findings that species should not be moved within regions, as is common with fish
populations (Steinberg, 1999). Without accurate demographic and natural history
information regarding the T.mazama, adequate management may never be attained.

61

The extent that translocating gophers to new habitat will be successful depends
on individuals passing alleles to the new neighbors, which cannot be successfully
estimated because of the potential of disease or parasite infestations caused by moving
T.mazama from one location to another. The success or failure of translocation remains
unknown.
Previous research regarding the habitat of the T.mazama, utilized methodology
that had inadequate resolution to delineate between appropriate and inappropriate
habitat. Although data collected by the WDFW indicates non-disturbed land with no
evidence of cutting, heavy grazing or burning may be optimum habitat for T.mazama it
may not account for soil conditions or forage availability on a small enough scale.
To create accurate data for the T.mazama, a Western Washington inventory
should be conducted that includes mark-recapture, live trapping, or using track tubes.
Techniques such as GIS and habitat mapping can be utilized, to create habitat maps
after a complete habitat inventory has been performed. Since gopher mounds are visible
above ground, opening tunnels may assist for gopher location and possible
enumeration.
Research should also be collected regarding thin prairie soils including soil
depletion rates over time and soil conditions that relate to specific gopher burrows.
Research is also indicated regarding specific sizes of gopher burrows and linking food
habits of the gopher over existing soil conditions that relate to precipitation, and other
long-term effects to soil. Soil depletion rates also may be calculated if sizes of gophers
and energy use efficiency are known. This valuable data should be incorporated into
management strategies to assist in prairie restoration.

62

Data and biological samples may be collected during the T.mazama statewide
inventory process that can assist in clarifying taxonomic issues by providing more
samples for MtDNA analysis. If there are trapping mortalities when using live trapping
techniques, specimens should be collected for ageing purposes, and for skeletal
confirmation of species.
Since herbicide use affects energetics of the whole ecosystem with inconclusive
results regarding gopher control, research should be conducted for damage control the
pocket gopher initiates, by researching genetically modified trees that may resist
damage, chemosterilants, gopher fencing, and research into placing trees in gopher
proof tubes before planting.

Recommendation against translocation of T.mazama

The T.mazama is adaptable to some degree with diet, and due to unknown
reasons, they may leave areas of reduced dicot availability, which may indicate
flexibility in acquiring new habitat, and they can adapt their sizes to environmental
conditions in the soil. However, these factors are not adequate to consider relocating
gophers without extensive research.
Translocation of gophers without conducting adequate prior research may cause
mortality. Gophers have over time adapted to soil conditions and to the variety of
available forage in the specific isolated prairies where they live. If they are relocated to
new areas, with too much clay in the soil or inadequate gas diffusion properties, they

63

may become hypothermic or unable to adapt to new forage. Tunneling energetics are
known to be high for gophers, and wet soil will limit gas diffusion properties.
Transporting gophers may be difficult because they have poor thermoregulation
properties, have been known to die in live traps due to hypothermia. They are territorial
and have been known to fight viciously when placed together. Little is known about
tunneling energetics for the T.mazama, because previous studies are referenced from a
single habitat area, with no references to other soil types. No specific literature exists
for translocation of T.mazama gophers. If translocation of gophers is attempted,
intensive research should be conducted before the gophers are moved. This will reduce
incidental occurrences of gophers that may perish attempting to tunnel in impervious
soils or suffer effects from predation or hypothermia, or translocation to inadequate
habitat.

Conclusions

Maintaining the habitat for the T.mazama pocket gopher is a vital component of
prairie restoration in Washington State. Gophers are invaluable restorative agents on
the prairies due to the gopher’s soil mining and aeration functions on the prairies,
leading to gas transport within fragile prairie soils, and soil-mounding activities during
burrowing that introduce soil to the prairie surface offering opportunities for
germination of non-dominant plant species. Additionally, gophers maintain habitats
occasionally near the edges of prairies, assisting in preventing invasive vegetative
encroachment.

64

There are opportunities for prairie restoration that apply a landscape ecology
approach to mapping, prioritizing habitat, and creation of policy, including protection
of the native plant and animal species and restoration of native seeds (Drake 1998;
Weber 1999). These approaches, along with recruiting and using volunteers to
restoring prairie habitat through prescribed burns is effective in several regions across
the United States (Sampson 1994; Kurtz 2000). However, work that is far more
intensive than the current efforts needs to be accomplished to restore the prairies in
Washington, to assist in landscape recovery, and to protect habitat for the T.mazama, a
species of concern.
Without more research, these limiting factors relating to the geographical
conditions and biological needs of the T.mazama will make relocation of gophers risky.
Although it may be possible to identify current and historic habitat locations by
examining easily obtained available data, this data needs strategic applications to a
cohesive management strategy that combines several landscape scales. This approach
will assist in preserving the unique remaining prairie habitat, and the T.mazama
populations. This approach will be a benefit to the maintenance of the prairie
ecosystem, and insure continued enjoyment of the prairies for future generations.

65

Bibliography
Abrams, P., A. (2002). "Will Small Population Sizes Warn Us of Impending
Extinctions?" The American Naturalist 160(3): 293-305.
Aldous, C. M. (1951). "The Feeding Habits of Pocket Gophers (Thomomys Talpoides
Moorei) in the High Mountain Ranges of Central Utah." Journal of Mammalogy
32(1): 84-87.
Aldous, C. M. (1957). "Fluctuations in Pocket Gopher Populations." Journal of
Mammalogy 38(2): 266-267.
Andersen, D. C. (1982). "Belowground Herbivory: The Adaptive Geometry of
Geomyid Burrows." American Midland Naturalist 119(1): 18-28.
Anderson, D. C. (1987). "Geomys Bursarius Burrowing Patterns: Influence of Season
and Food Patch Structure." Ecology 68(5): 1306-1318.
Antos, J. A. M., Bruce; Bara, Cliff (1983). "The Effect of Fire on an Ungrazed Western
Montana Grassland." American Midland Naturalist 110(2): 354-364.
Bailey, V. (1915). Revision of the Pocket Gophers of the Genus Thomomys.
Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological
Survey.
Bailey, V. (1915). Revision of the Pocket Gophers of the Genus Thomomys: North
America Fauna, No. 39. Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Biological Survey: 136p.
Bain, L. (2000). "Component Modeling for the Spatial Representation of Wildlife
Movements." Journal of Environmental Management 59: 235-245.
Bandoli, J. H. (1981). "Factors Influencing Seasonal Burrowing Activity in the Pocket
Gopher, Thomomys Bottae." J. Mammal. 62(2): 293-303.
Barnes, V. G. and United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. (1973). Pocket
gophers and reforestation in the Pacific Northwest : a problem analysis.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife : For sale by the Supt. of Docs. U.S. G.P.O.

66

Barnes, V. G., United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife., et al. (1973).
Pocket Gophers and Reforestation in the Pacific Northwest: a Problem Analysis.
Special Scientific Report 155. Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish
and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: 18p.
Barnes, V. G. J. (1973). Pocket Gophers and Reforestation in the Pacific Northwest: A
Problem Analysis. Washington D.C., United States Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: 18p.
Beattie, M. (1996). "An Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation."
Ecological Applications 6(3): 696-699.
Brown, S. R. M., Karen (1996). "Ecosystem Management in State Government."
Ecological Applications 6(3): 721-723.
Brylski, P. V. (1985). Morphological Evolution and Comparative Development of
Geomyoid Rodents: iv, 193 [193] leaves.
Burton, D. H. B., Hugh C. (1978). "Feeding Habits of Mazama Pocket Gophers in
South-Central Oregon." Journal of Wildlife Management 42(2): 383-390.
Clark, B. K. C., Brenda S.; Homerding, Todd R.; Munsterman, Walter E. (1998).
"Communities of Small Mammals in Six Grass-dominated Habitats of
Southeastern Oklahoma." The American Midland Naturalist 139(2): 262-268.
Cornell, H. V. L., J.H. (1992). "Species Interactions, Local and Regional Processes, and
Limits to the Richness of Ecological Communities: A Theoretical Perspective."
Journal of Animal Ecology 61(1): 1-12.
Cort, C. A. (1996). "A Survey of the Use of Natural Heritage Data in Local Land-Use
Planning." Conservation Biology 10(2): 632-637.
Cox, G. W. (1984). "The Distribution and Origin of Mima Mound Grasslands in San
Diego County, California." Ecology 65(5): 1397-1405.
Cox, G. W. (1989). "Early Summer Diet and Food Preferences of Northern Pocket
Gophers in North Central Oregon." Northwest Science 63(3): 77-82.
Cox, G. W. (1990). "Soil Mining by Pocket Gophers along Topographical Gradients in
a Mima Moundfield." Ecology 71(3): 837-843.
Cox, G. W. (1991). "Pocket Gophers and Mima Terrain in North America." Natural
Areas Journal 11(4): 193-198.

67

Crisafuli, C. (2003). Thomomys talpoides. C. K. e. correspondence. Olympia,
Washington.
Dalquest, W. W. (1948). Mammals of Washington. Topeka, Kansas, University of
Kansas.
Dalquest, W. W., Scheffer, Victor B. (1942). "Three New Pocket Gophers (Genus
Thomomys) From Western Washington." Proceedings of the Biological Society
of Washington 55: 95-98.
Dalquest, W. W., Scheffer, Victor B. (1944). "Distribution and Variation in Pocket
Gophers, Thomomys talpoides, in the State of Washington." American
Naturalist 78(777): 308-333.
Davidson, C. (1998). "Issues in Measuring Landscape Fragmentation." Wildlife Society
Bulletin 26(1): 32-37.
Davis, M. A. R., Byron; Graf, Norman; Gregg, Kim (1995). "An Experimental Study of
the Effects of Shade, Nonspecific Crowding, Pocket Gophers and Surrounding
Vegetation on Survivorship and Reproduction In Penstemom grandiflorus."
American Midland Naturalist 134(2): 237-243.
Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Pryor Mountain Wild
Horse Range (2002). Billings, Montana, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau
of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program: 20p.
Del Moral, R. D. (1976). "Vegetation of the Mima Mounds, Washington State."
Ecology 57(520-530).
Drake, D. E., Kern; Dunn, Patrick (1998). "Techniques to Promote Germination of
Seed from Puget Sound Prairies." Restoration and Management Notes 16(1):
33-40.
Ebenbach, D. H. M., Colleen (2000). "Incomplete Information, Inferences, and
Individual Differences: The Case of Environmental Judgments." Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81(1): 1-27.
Ellison, L. (1946). "The Pocket Gopher in Relation to Soil Erosion on Mountain
Range." Ecology 27(2): 101-114.
Engeman, R. M. B., V.G.; Anthony, R.M.; Krupa, H.W. (1998). "Damage Reduction to
Ponderosa Pine Seedlings From Northern Pocket Gophers by Vegetation

68

Management Through Grass Seeding and Herbicide Treatment." International
Biodeterioration and Biodegration 42: 115-121.
Engleman, R. M. B., Victor G.Jr.;Krupa, Heather W.; Evans, James (1999).
"Evaluations of Plastic Mesh Tubes for Protecting Conifer Seedlings from
Pocket Gophers in Three Western States." Journal of Applied Forestry 14(2):
86-90.
Engleman, R. M. N., Dale L.; Bulkin, Stephen P. (1999). "Optimization of the OpenHole Method for Assessing Pocket Gopher Thomomys sp., Activity." Canadian
Field Naturalist 113(2): 241-244.
Flather, C. H. K., Michael S.; Kendall, Iris A. (1998). "Threatened and Endangered
Species Geography." BioScience 48(5): 365-376.
Frid, A. D., Lawrence M. (2002). "Human-Caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Form of
Predation Risk." Conservation Biology 6(1): art.1.
Frohn, R. C. (1998). Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology; New Metric Indicators
for Monitoring, Modeling , and Assessment of Ecosystems. Boca Raton, Lewis
Publishers.
Gardner, M. C. (1949). "An Undescribed Pocket Gopher." Journal of Mammology
31(1): 92-93.
Gibson, D. J. (1989). "Effects of Animal Disturbance on Tallgrass Prairie Vegetation."
American Midland Naturalist 1: 144-154.
Glennon, M. J. P., William F.; Demers, Charlotte L. (2002). "An Alternative Field
Technique for Estimating Diversity of Small Mammal Populations." Journal of
Mammalogy 83(3): 734-742.
Hafner, M. S. H. J. S. (1982). "Structure of Surface Mounds of Zygogeomys (Rodentia:
Geomyidae)." J. Mammal. 63: 536-538.
Hall, E. R. (1981). The Mammals of North America. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Hansen, A. J. R., J.J.; Kraska, M.P.V.; Brown D. (1999). "Dynamic Habitat and
Population Analysis: An Approach to Resolve the Biodiversity Manager's
Dilemma." Ecological Applications 9(4): 1459-1476.
Hansen, R. M. M., M.J. (1968). "Movement of Rocks by Northern Pocket Gophers."
Journal of Mammalogy 49(3): 391-399.

69

Hartwell, H. D. J., Larry E. (1988). An Investigation of the King Mountain
Regeneration Problem: 1981-1987. Olympia, Washington, Washington State
Department of Natural Resources: 32p.
Hill, J. E. (1934). "External Characteristics of Newborn Pocket Gophers." Journal of
Mammalogy 15: 244-245.
Hobbs, R. J. H., V.J. (1987). "Gophers and Grassland: A Model of Vegetation
Response to Patchy Soil Disturbance." Vegetatio 69: 141-146.
Hobbs, R. J. M., Harold A. (1991). "Effects of Rainfall Variability and Gopher
Disturbance on Serpentine Annual Grassland Dynamics." Ecology 72(1): 59-68.
Holmes, E. E. (2001). "Estimating Risks in Declining Populations With Poor Data."
PNAS 98(9): 5072-5077.
House, F. (2001). "On Behalf of the Wild: A Conversation with Gary Snyder."
Ecological Restoration 19(4): 227-234.
Howard, W. E. (1951). "Relation Between Low Temperature and Available Food to
Survival of Small Rodents." Journal of Mammalogy 32(3): 300-312.
Howe, H. F. (1994). "Response of Early- and Late-Flowering Plants to Fire Season in
Experimental Prairies." Ecological Applications 4(1): 121-133.
Howe, H. F. (1995). "Succession and Fire Season in Experimental Prairie Plantings."
Ecology 76(6): 1917-1925.
Howe, H. F. (1999). "Response of Zizia aurea to Seasonal Mowing and Fire in a
Restored Prairie." American Midland Naturalist 121(2): 373-380.
Huntly, N. (1991). "Herbivores and the Dynamics of Communities and Ecosystems."
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22: 477-503.
Huntly, N. I., R. (1988). "Pocket Gophers in Ecosystems: Patterns and Mechanisms."
Bioscience 38(11): 786-793.
Ingles, L. G. (1949). "Ground Water and Snow as Factors Affecting the Seasonal
Distribution of Pocket Gophers, Thomomys monticola." Journal of Mammalogy
30(4): 343-350.
Inouye, R. S. (1997). "Effects of Pocket Gophers (Geomys Bursarius) on
Microtopographic Variation." Journal of Mammalogy 78(4): 1144-1148.

70

Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gophers (2001). Victoria, B.C., Canada,
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Conservation Biology Section,
Resource Inventory Branch: 64p.
Johnson, M. L. B. S. B. (1960). "Relationship of the Pocket Gophers of the Thomomys
mazama-talpoides Complex in the Pacific Northwest." The Murrelet 41(2): 1922p.
Johnson, R. E. C. K. M. (1997). Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State: Location
Data and Predicted Distributions, Volume 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis Final Report. (K.M. Cassidy, C.E.Grue, M.R. Smith and K.M. Dvornich, eds).
Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of
Washington, Seattle: 304p.
Karl, M. G. (1999). "Vegetation Biomass Dynamics and Patterns of Sexual
Reproduction in a Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie." American Midland Naturalist
141(2): 227-237.
Keith, J. O. H., Richard M.; Ward, Lorin A. (1959). "Effect on 2,4-D on Abundance
and Foods of Pocket Gophers." Journal of Wildlife Management 23(2): 137145.
Kennerly, T. E. J. (1959). "Contact Between the Ranges of Two Allopatric Species of
Pocket Gophers." Evolution 13(2): 247-263.
Klaas, B. A. D., Brent J.; Moloney, Kirk A. (1998). "Influence on Pocket Gophers on
Meadow Voles in a Tallgrass Prairie." Journal of Mammalogy 79(3): 942-952.
Klaas, B. A. M., Kirk A.; Danielson, Brent J. (2000). "The Tempo and Mode of Gopher
Mound Production in a Tallgrass Prairie Remnant." Ecography 23: 246-256.
Koide, R. T. H., L.F.; Mooney H.A. (1987). "Gopher Mound Soil Reduces Growth and
Affects Ion Uptake of Two Annual Grassland Species." Oecologia 72: 284-290.
Kokkoris, G. J., Vincent A.A.; Loreau, Michel; Troumbis, Andreas Y. (2002).
"Variability in Interaction Strength and Implications for Biodiversity." Journal
of Animal Ecology 71: 362-371.
Kruckeburg, A., R. (1991). The Natural History of Puget Sound Country, University of
Washington Press.

71

Kurtz, C. (2000). Seventeenth Biennial North American Prairie Conference.
Seventeenth Biennial, Mason City IA.
Landres, P. B. V., Jared; Thomas, Jack Ward (1988). "Ecological Uses of Vertebrate
Indicator Species: A Critique." Conservation Biology 2(4): 316-328.
Laycock, W. A. (1957). "Seasonal Periods of Surface Inactivity of the Pocket Gopher."
Journal of Mammalogy 38(1): 132-133.
Leach, M. K. G., Thomas J. (1996). "Ecological Determinants of Species Loss in
Remnant Prairies." Science 273(September): 1555-1558.
Lee, L. L. H., Walter E.; Marsh, Rex E. (1990). Acquired Strychnine Tolerance by
Pocket Gophers. Proc. 14th Vertebr. Pest Conf., Davis, California, University of
California, Wildlife and Fisheries Biology.
Livezy, B. C. V., B.J. (1979). "Estimates of Age and Age Structure in Mazama Pocket
Gophers, (Thomomys mazama)." The Murrelet 60: 38-41.
Ludwig, D. M., Marc; Haddad, Brent (2001). "Ecology, Conservation, and Public
Policy." Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 481-517.
Lugo, A. E. B., S.L.; Dodson, R.; Smith, T.S.; Shugart, H.H. (1999). "Special Paper:
The Holdridge Life Zones of the Conterminous United States in Relation to
Ecosystem Mapping." Journal of Biogeography 26(5): 1025-1038.
MacMahon, J. A. P., Robert R.; Johnson, Kurt A.; Crisafulli, Charles M. (1989). "Small
Mammal Recolonization on the Mount St. Helens Volcano: 1980-1987." Am.
Midl. Nat. 122(2): 365-387.
Mapping the Diversity of Nature (1994). Oxford G.B., Alden Press, Oxford.
Marsh, R. E. (1984). IPM Concepts in Vertebrate Pest Control Relative to Forestry,.
Integrated Forest Pest Management Symposium, p.25-37, Athens, Georgia,
University of Georgia.
Marsh, R. E. (1986). Vertebrate Pest Management. Advances in Urban Pest
Management. G. W. O. Bennett, J.M. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, Co.:
259-285p.
Marsh, R. E. (1991). Landscape Plants, Forest Trees, and Crops Most Resistant to
Mammal Damage: An Overview. Proceedings from the 10th Great Plains

72

Wildlife Damage Conferrence, Lincon, Nebraska, University of NebraskaLincon.
Marsh, R. E. (1992). Reflections on Current (1992) Pocket Gopher Control in
California. Proc. 15th Vertebrate Pest Control, University of Calif. Davis.
Marsh, R. E. (1998). Barn Owl Nest Boxes Offer No Solution to Pocket Gopher
Damage. Proc. 18th Vertebr. Pest Conf, University of California, Davis.
Marsh, R. E. (2001). "Vertebrate Pest Control Chemicals and Their Use in Urban and
Rural Environments." Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology 1: Principals: 251262p.
Marsh, R. E. S., Robert W. (1992). Sivicultural Approaches to Animal Damage
Management in Pacific Northwest Forests; Section Four: Silvicultural Methods
in Relation to Selected Wildlife Species. Portland, Oregon, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 205-230.
Maulk, C. L. H., Marilyn A.; Bradley, Robert D. (1999). "Morphometric Analysis of
Seven Species of Pocket Gophers." Journal of Mammology 80(2): 499-511.
McNab, B. K. (1966). "The Metabolism of Fossorial Rodents: A Study of
Convergence." Ecology 47(5): 712-733.
Mielke, H. W. (1977). "Mound Building by Pocket Gophers (Geomyidae): Their
Impact on Soils and Vegetation in North America." Journal of Biogeography
4(2): 171-180.
Miller, G. S. J. K., Remington (1955). List of North American Recent Animals:
Thomomys talpoides couchi(p.322). Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution:
954p.
Miller, G. S. J. K. R. (1955). List of North American Recent Mammals. Washington
E.C., Smithsonian Institution: 954.
Miller, M. A. (1948). "Seasonal Trends in Burrowing of Pocket Gophers (Thomomys)."
Journal of Mammalogy 29(1): 38-43.
Moore, A. W. and H. Reid Elbert (1951). The Dalles Pocket Gopher and its Influence
on Forage Production of Oregon Mountain Meadows.
Muchoki, C. H. K. (1988). Remotely Sensed Relationships Between Wooded Patch
Habitats and Agricultural Landscape Type: A Basis for Ecological Planning.

73

Landscape Ecology and Management. M. Moss. Montreal, Canada, Polyscience
Publications, Inc.: 85-94.
Myers, G. T. V., Terry A. (1964). "Food Habits of the Plains Pocket Gopher in Eastern
Colorado." Journal of Mammalogy 45(4): 588-598.
Nelson, J. G. G., P.; Smith, P.G.R.; Theberge, J.B. (1988). The ABC Resource Survey
Method, the ESA Concept and Comprehensive Land Use Planning and
Management. Landscape Ecology and Management. M. Moss. Montreal,
Canada, Polyscience Publications, LTD.: 143-175.
Nevo, E. (1979). "Adaptive Convergence and Divergence of Subterranean Mammals."
Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10: 269-308.
Ney-Nifle, M. M., Marc (2000). "Habitat Loss and Changes in the Species-Area
Relationship." Conservation Biology 14(3): 893-898.
Nikiforoff, C. C. (1941). Hardpan and Microrelief in Certain Soil Complexes on
California. Washington D.C., United States Department of Agriculture: 45p.
Ostrow, G. D. H., Nancy; Inouye, Richard S. (2002). "Plant-mediated Interactions
between the Northern Pocket Gopher, Thomomys talpoides, and Aboveground
Herbivore Insects." Journal of Mammology 83(4): 991-998.
Pocket Gopher Survey, Olympia Airport (2002). Seattle, Washington, Anchor
Environmental, L.L.C.: 9p.
Press, D. D., Daniel F.; Steinberg, Paul (1996). "The Role of Local Government in the
Conservation of Rare Species." Conservation Biology 10(6): 1538-1548.
Price, W. A. (1949). "Pocket Gophers as Architects of Mima (Pimple) Mounds of the
Western United States." Texas Journal of Science 1(1): 16p.
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). "Sources, Sinks and Population Regulation." The American
Naturalist 122(5): 652-661.
Rapport, D. J. G., C.; Karr, J.R.; Baron, J.S.; Bohlen, C.; Jackson, W.; Jones, B.;
Naimann, R.J.; Norton, B.; Pollock, M.M. (1998). "Evaluating Landscape
Health: Integrating Societal Goals and Biophysical Process." Journal of
Environmental Management 53: 1-15.

74

Reichman, O. J. (1988). "Comparison of the Effects of Crowding and Pocket Gopher
Disturbance on Mortality, Growth, and Seed Production of Berteroa incana."
Am. Midl. Nat. 120(1): 58-69.
Reichman, O. J. B., J.H.; Seastedt, T.R. (1993). "Distinct Animal-Generated Edge
Effects in a Tallgrass Prairie Community." Ecology 74(4): 1281-1285.
Reichman, O. J. W. T. G. R., George A. (1982). "Adaptive Geometry of Burrow
Spacing in Two Pocket Gopher Populations." Ecology 63(3): 687-695.
Reichmann, O. J. W., Thomas G.; Ruffner, George A. (1982). "Adaptive Geometry of
Burrow Spacing in Two Pocket Gopher Populations." 63(3): 687-695.
Rensberger, J. M. (1983). "Successions of Meniscomyine and Allomyine Rodents
(Aplodontidae) in the Oligo-Miocene John Day Formation." Geological
Sciences 124: 157p.
Rezsutek, M. C., Guy N. (1998). "Influence of Resources Removal on Demography of
Attwater's Pocket Gopher." Journal of Mammology 79(2): 538-550.
Rezsutek, M. C., Guy N. (2000). "Vegetative Edge Effects and Pocket Gopher
Tunnels." Journal of Mammology 81(4): 1062-1070.
Richens, V. B. (1966). "Notes on the Digging Activity of a Northern Pocket Gopher."
Journal of Mammalogy 47(3): 531-533.
Rogers, W. E. H., David C.; Elder, Bradley (2001). "Effects of Plains Pocket Gother
(Geomys bursarius) Disturbances on Tallgrass Prairie Plant Community
Structure." The American Midland Naturalist 145(2): 344-357.
Salmon, T. P. M. R. E. (1981). "Artificial Establishment of a Ground Squirrel Colony."
J. Wildl. Manage 45(4): 1016-1018.
Salmon, T. P. S., Robert H.; Marsh Rex E. (1990). An Evaluation of Fencing to
Exclude Pocket Gophers From Experimental Plots. Proc. 14th Vertebr. Pest
Conf., University of California, Davis.
Salwasser, H. (1992). "From New Perspectives to Ecosystem Management: Response
to Frissell et.al. and Lawrence and Murphy." Conservation Biology 6(3): 469472.
Sampson, F. K., Fritz (1994). "Prairie Conservation in North America." Bioscience 44:
5p.

75

Samson, F. K., Fritz (1994). "Prairie Conservation in North America." BioScience
44(Je): 5p.
Scheffer, T. H. (1938). "Breeding Records of Pacific Coast Pocket Gophers." Journal of
Mammalogy 19: 220-342.
Scheffer, V. B. (1947). "The Mystery of the Mima Mounds." Scientific Monthly 65(4):
283-294.
Scheffer, V. B. K., Arthur (1966). "The Mima Mounds." BioScience 16(11): 800-801.
Schram, P. (1961). "Copulation and Gestatation in the Pocket Gopher." Journal of
Mammalogy 42(2): 167-170.
Seabloom, E. W. R., O.J. (2001). "Simulation Models of the Interactions Between
Heribivore Foraging Strategies, Social Behavior, and Plant Community
Dynamics." The American Naturalist 157(1): 76-96.
Shindler, B. C., Kristen Aldred (1999). "Integrating Citizens in Adaptive Management:
A Propositional Analysis." Conservation Ecology 3(1): 9-19.
Smith, M. F. P., James L. (1988). "Subspecies of Pocket Gophers: Causal Bases for
Geographic Differentiation in Thomomys Bottae." Syst. Zool. 37(2): 163-178.
Spencer, S. R. C., Guy N.; Eshelman, Bruce D.; Cooper, Linda C.; Williams, Lawrence
R. (1985). "Influence of Pocket Gopher Mounds on a Texas Coastal Prairie."
Oecologia 66: 111-115.
Spradling, T. A. H., Mark S.; Demastes James W. (2001). "Differences in Rate of
Cytochrome-b Evolution Among Species of Rodents." Journal of Mammology
82(1): 65-80.
Steinberg, E. K. (1995). A Study of Genetic Differentiation and Variation in the
Mazana Pocket Gother (Thomomys mazama) with Emphasis on Fort Lewis
Populations. Seattle, Wa., University of Washington, Department of Zoology,
Final Report Submitted to Fort Lewis and the Nature Conservancy.
Steinberg, E. K. (1999). Diversification of Genes, Populations and Species:
Evolutionary Genetics of Real and Virtual Pocket Gophers (Thomomys).
Department of Zoology. Seattle, WA., University of Washington: 157p.

76

Steinberg, E. K. H., Dana (1996). Using DNA and Rocks to Interpret the Taxonomy
and Patchy Distribution of Pocket Gophers in Western Washington Prairies.
Seattle, WA., The Nature Conservancy: 43-51.
Stromberg, M. R. G., James R. (1996). "Long-Term Patterns in Coastal California
Grasslands in Relation to Cultivation, Gophers and Grazing." Ecological
Applications 6(4): 1189-1211.
Symstad, A. J. C., F. Stewart III; Wall, Diana H.; Gross, Katherine L.; Huenneke, Laura
F.; Mittelbach, Gary G.; Peters, Debra P.C.; Tilman, David (2003). "Long-Term
and Large-Scale Perspectives on the Relationship Between Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Functioning." Bioscience 53(1): 89-98.
Szacki, J. L., Anna (1991). "Movements of Small Mammals in the Heterogeneous
Landscape." Landscape Ecology 5(4): 219-224.
Tenenbaum, D. (2000). "Land Trusts: A Restoration Frontier." Ecological Restoration
18(3): 167-172.
Thaeler, C. S. J. (1980). "Chromosome Numbers and Systematic Relations in the Genus
Thomomys (Rodentia: Geomyidae)." Journal of Mammology 61(3): 414-422.
Theobald, D. M. N. J. H. (2002). "A Framework for Evaluating Land Use Planning
Alternatives: Protecting Biodiversity on Private Land." Conservation Ecology
6(1): 35p.
Thorne, D. H. A., Douglas C. (1990). "Long-Term Soil-Disturbance Pattern By a
Pocket Gopher Geomys Bursarius." J. Mammal. 71(1): 84-89.
Tietjen, H. P. H., Curtis H.; Hegdal, Paul L.; Johnson, Ancel M. (1967). "2-4-D
Herbicide, Vegetation and Pocket Gopher Relationships in Black Mesa,
Colorado." Ecology 48(4): 634-643.
Tryon, C. A. (1942). The Biology of the Pocket Gopher, Thomomys talpoides. Thesis
(Ph. D.)--Cornell Univ., Sept. 1942. Ithaca, N.Y.: 113.
Tryon, C. A. J. (1951). "The Use of Skull Measurements at the Subspecific Level in
Mammalian Taxonomy, with Special Reference to Thomomys Talpoides."
Journal of Mammalogy 32(1): 313-318.

77

Tunberg, A. D. H., Walter E.; Marsh, Rex E. (1984). A New Concept in Pocket Gopher
Control. Proceedings Eleventh Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento,
California, University of California, Davis.
Vaughan, T. A. (1961). "Vertebrates Inhabitating Pocket Gopher Burrows in
Colorado." Journal of Mammalogy 45(2): 171-174.
Vaughan, T. A. (1963). "Movements Made By Two Species of Pocket Gophers."
American Midland Naturalist 69(2): 367-372.
Verts, B. J. C., Leslie N. (1998). Family Geomyidae - Pocket Gophers. Land Mammals
of Oregon. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press: 223-238.
Verts, B. J. C., Leslie N. (1998). Thomomys mazama Merriam: Western Pocket Gopher.
Land Mammals of Oregon. Berkeley and Los Angeles Ca., University of
California Press: 231-234.
Weber, S. (1999). "Designing Seed Mixes for Prairie Restorations: Revisiting the
Formula." Ecological Restorations 14(4): 196-201.
Weeks, P. P., Jane M. (1997). "Acceptance of Scientific Management by Natural
Resource Dependent Communities." Conservation Biology 11(1): 236-245.
Whitmer, G. W. M., Rex E.; Matschke, George H (1999). Trapping Considerations for
the Fossorial Pocket Gopher. Mammal Trapping: Chapter 9. G. Proulx.
Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada, Alpha Wildlife Research & Management
Ltd.: 131-139.
Wildlife Fertility Control: Fact & Fancy (2000). Billings, Montana, Zoomontana: 14p.
Williams, L. R. C., Guy N.; Spencer, Stephen R.; Eshelman, Bruce D.; Gregory,
Michael J. (1986). "Experimental Analysis of the Effects on Pocket Gopher
Mounds on Texas Coastal Prairie." Journal of Mammalogy 67(4): 672-679.
Witmer, G. W. (1996). "Biology and Habitat Use of the Mazama Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys mazama) in the Puget Sound Area, Washington." Northwest
Science 70(2): 93-98.
Yaffee, S. L. (1999). "Three Faces of Ecosystem Management." Conservation Biology
13(4): 713-725.
Yahner, R. H. (1988). "Changes to Wildlife Communities Near Edges." Conservation
Biology 2(4): 333-339.

78

Item sets

The Evergreen State College Masters Theses: Environmental Studies

Media

Knudsen_C MESThesis 2003.pdf