Marmota olympus

(Merriam, 1898)

Olympic Marmot

G2Imperiled (G2G3) Found in 3 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Medium - lowThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102145
Element CodeAMAFB03050
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderRodentia
FamilySciuridae
GenusMarmota
Other Common Names
Olympic marmot (EN)
Concept Reference
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Taxonomic Comments
Marmota olympus formerly was regarded as a subspecies of M. marmota by some authors. It was regarded as a distinct species by Jones et al. (1992), Hoffmann et al. (in Wilson and Reeder 1993), and Thorington and Hoffmann (in Wilson and Reeder 2005). Recent genetic work suggests that Olympic Marmots diverged from the Vancouver Island (M. vancouverensis) and Hoary (M. caligata) Marmots about 2.6 million years ago (Steppan et al. 2011, Kerhoulas et al. 2015).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2022-03-02
Change Date2022-03-02
Edition Date2022-03-01
Edition AuthorsCannings, S. (2022), G. Hammerson and J.W. Fleckenstein (2006, 2011)
Threat ImpactMedium - low
Range Extent1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
Small range in the Olympic Mountains of Washington State; localized declines and extirpations occurred from the late 1980s to early 2000s, but population is more or less stable at present. Coyote predation and climate change (tree encroachment into meadows) may be responsible for the declines.
Range Extent Comments
The range is limited to the upper slopes of the Olympic Mountains of northwestern Washington (Edelman 2003); the species is almost completely restricted to Olympic National Park (Barash 1973). Extent of occurrence was estimated at 1,800 square kilometers by Barash (1973); survey in 2012 resulted in a mapped extent of about 1500 km2. However, the more generalized map in Cassola (2016) shows a larger extent of approximately 4500 km2. Most marmots occur at elevations of 1500-1750 meters, with normal lower and upper extremes of 920 and 1990 meters (Barash 1973, Wood 1973) and rare occurrences to near sea level (30-200 meters) (Scheffer 1995).
Occurrences Comments
Based on a 5-km separation distance between occupied occurrences, there were about 12-13 mapped in the 2018 survey (NPS 2018). A few more probably exist along unsurveyed ridges.
Threat Impact Comments
The synergistic effects of predation by coyotes and tree encroachment into subalpine meadows may have been responsible for local declines in the 1990s and 2000s (S. C. Griffin, pers. comm., cited by Edelman 2003; Griffin et al. 2008, 2009). During the 1990s and 2000s, annual survival of adult females dropped to less than 70%, compared to about 89% in the 1960s; predation by coyotes was the most common cause of mortality (Griffin 2007, Witczuk 2007, WDFW 2013). Although coyotes have inhabited Olympic Marmot habitat for around 60 years, they were rare or absent before then, when wolves were widespread in the area (Scheffer 1995). After 2007, marmot survival increased in years with higher than normal snowpack, which apparently impacted coyote predation rates (WDFW 2013).

Climate warming and lower snowpack therefore may be linked with increased coyote predation. Warming will also cause tree encroachment in the marmot's meadows (McCaffery and Jenkins 2018), and this may be exacerbated by fire suppression.

Climate change may also alter precipitation patterns. Deep snowpack in the spring can have a negative impact on marmot reproduction, but too little snow may remove insulation needed by hibernating marmots (Inouye et al. 2000, Tafani et al. 2013) and add to drought conditions in the summer (McCaffery and Jenkins 2018).

Disturbance is not seen as a serious threat; Olympic Marmots acclimate quickly to human intrusion into colonies (Edelman 2003).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Head and front part of body mainly brown, fading to yellowish by late summer, with white guard hairs; small ears; prominent bushy tail; short legs; dark brown feet; white incisors; total length 450-785 mm (Whitaker 1996).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Hoary marmot (M. caligata) has bold black and white pattern on the head and front part of the body. Woodchuck (M. monax) is uniformly grizzled blackish or dark brown on the head and upper body. Yellow-bellied marmot (M. flaviventris) has prominent yellowish patches on the sides of the head and neck, and buffy or pale feet (Whitaker 1996).

Habitat

Typical habitat encompasses subalpine and alpine meadows and talus slopes near timberline; many colonies are located on south-facing slopes, where food availability is probably greater because of earlier snowmelt (Barash 1973). Young are born in underground burrows.

Reproduction

Probably similar to M. CALIGATA which mates in spring soon after emergence from hibernation, bears young in late May or early June, produces 1 litter of 4-5 young/year. Young reach sexual maturity probably in 2-3 years (Banfield 1974).
Terrestrial Habitats
Grassland/herbaceousAlpineBare rock/talus/scree
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
WashingtonS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modificationsRestricted - smallSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.1 - Fire & fire suppressionRestricted - smallSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (3)
Washington (3)
AreaForestAcres
Jefferson RidgeOlympic National Forest6,512
Mt. BaldyOlympic National Forest3,557
QuilceneOlympic National Forest18,656
References (31)
  1. American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2024. The Mammal Diversity Database (MDD). Online. Available: www.mammaldiversity.org
  2. Armitage, K. B. 1974. Male behavior and territoriality in the yellow-bellied marmot. Journal of Zoology, London 172:233-265.
  3. Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.
  4. Barash, D. P. 1973a. Social variety in the yellow-bellied marmot (<i>Marmota flaviventris</i>). Animal Behavior 21:570-84.
  5. Barash, D. P. 1973b. The social biology of the Olympic marmot. Animal Behaviour Monographs 6:171-249.
  6. Barash, D. P. 1989. Marmots: social behavior and ecology. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. xvii + 360 pp.
  7. Bryant, A. A. 1998. Metapopulation ecology of Vancouver Island marmots (<i>Marmota vancouverensis</i>). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. 125 pp.
  8. Cassola, F. 2016. <i>Marmota olympus</i>. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.T42459A22257452. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T42459A22257452.en.
  9. Dalquest. W. W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Museum Natural History Publ. 2:1-444.
  10. Edelman, A. J. 2003. <i>Marmota olympus</i>. Mammalian Species (736):1-5.
  11. Griffin, S.C. 2007. Demography and ecology of a declining endemic: the Olympic Marmot. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula.190 pages.
  12. Griffin, S.C., M.L. Taper, R. Hoffman, and L.S. Mills. 2008. The case of the missing marmots: Are metapopulation dynamics or range-wide declines responsible? Biological Conservation 141:1293-1309.
  13. Griffin, S.C., P.C. Griffin, M.L. Taper, and L.S. Mills. 2009. Marmots on the move? Dispersal in a declining montane mammal. Journal of Mammalogy 90:686-695.
  14. Hayes, S. R. 1977. Home range of <i>Marmota monax</i> (Sciuridae) in Arkansas. Southwestern Naturalist 22:547-50.
  15. Howell, A. H. 1915. Revision of the North American marmots. North American Fauna 37:1-80.
  16. Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
  17. Inouye, D.W., B. Barr, K.B. Armitage, and B.D. Inouye. 2000. Climate change is affecting altitudinal migrants and hibernating species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97:1630-1633.
  18. Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.
  19. Kerhoulas, N.J., A.M. Gunderson, and L.E. Olson. 2015. Complex history of isolation and gene flow in Hoary, Olympic, and endangered Vancouver Island Marmots. Journal of Mammalogy 96:810-826.
  20. McCaffery, R., and K. Jenkins (editors). 2018. Natural resource condition assessment: Olympic National Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/OLYM/NRR—2018/1826. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
  21. National Park Service (NPS). 2018. 2018 Marmot monitoring results. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/2018-marmot-monitoring-results.htm.
  22. Scheffer, V. B. 1995 [written in 1948]. Mammals of the Olympic National Park and vicinity. Northwest Fauna 2:5-133.
  23. Steppan, S J., G.J. Kenagy, C. Zawadzki, R. Robles, E.A. Lyapunova, and R.S. Hoffmann. 2011. Molecular data resolve placement of the Olympic marmot and estimate dates of trans-Beringian interchange. Journal of Mammalogy 92:1028-1037.
  24. Tafani, M., A. Cohas, C. Bonenfant, J.-M. Gaillard, and D. Allainé. 2013. Decreasing litter size of marmots over time: a life history response to climate change? Ecology 94:580-586.
  25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2026. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for 10 Species. Federal Register 91(16):3096-3101.
  26. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Washington: 2012 Annual Report. Listing and Recovery Section, Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 251 pages.
  27. Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1996. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, USA. 937 pp.
  28. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
  29. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [As modified by ASM the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) at https://www.mammaldiversity.org/index.html]
  30. Witczuk, J.J. 2007. Monitoring program and assessment of coyote predation for Olympic Marmots. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 75 pages.
  31. Wood, W. A. 1973b. Habitat selection and energetics of the Olympic marmot. M.S. thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham. 56 pp.