Birds

Thompson, William L.; White, Gary C.; Gowan, Charles

doi:10.1016/b978-012688960-4/50009-5

Cited by 12 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the aim was to detect new incursions/range expansions then relatively more effort should be placed in areas of lower habitat suitability. Further work is required to generate rules of thumb for the allocation of survey effort based on habitat suitability maps, and adaptive sampling may be a useful approach (Thompson, White & Gowan 1998). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, presence-only modelling based on incidental sightings may be subject to major spatial and detection biases (Gu & Swihart 2004; Wintle, Elith & Potts 2005; Araújo & Guisan 2006). An alternative approach is to conduct field surveys in a way that accounts for potential spatial biases (by using a known sampling design; Thompson, White & Gowan 1998) and imperfect detection of the species of interest (MacKenzie et al 2002): modelling such data estimates the probability of occupancy (MacKenzie et al 2006). Occupancy models constructed from observed presence–absence data also predict habitat suitability when projected across the landscape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using presence‐only and presence–absence data to estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species

Gormley

Forsyth

Griffioen³

et al. 2010

Journal of Applied Ecology

181

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1.Predicting the current and potential distributions of established invasive species is critical for evaluating management options, but methods for differentiating these distributions have received little attention. In particular, there is uncertainty among invasive species managers about the value of information from incidental sightings compared to data from designed field surveys. This study compares the two approaches, and develops a unifying framework, using the case of invasive sambar deer Cervus unicolor in Victoria, Australia.2.We first used 391 incidental sightings of sambar deer and 12 biophysical variables to construct a presence-only habitat suitability model using Maxent. We then used that model to stratify field sampling, with proportionately greater sampling of cells with high predicted habitat suitability. Field sampling, consisting of faecal pellet surveys, sign surveys and camera trapping, was conducted in 80 4-km2 grid cells. A Bayesian state-space occupancy model was used to predict probability of suitable habitat from the field data.3.The Maxent and occupancy models predicted similar spatial distributions of habitat suitability for sambar deer in Victoria and there was a strong positive correlation between the rankings of cells by the two approaches. The congruence of the two models suggests that any spatial and detection biases in the presence-only data were relatively unimportant in our study.4.We predicted the extent of suitable habitat from the occupancy model using a threshold that gave a false negative error rate of 0·05. The current distribution was the suitable habitat within a kernel that had a 99·5% chance of including the presence locations pooled from incidental sightings and field surveys: the potential distribution was suitable habitat outside that kernel. Several discrete areas of potential distribution were identified as priorities for surveillance monitoring with the aim of detecting and managing incursions of sambar deer.5.Synthesis and applications.Our framework enables managers to robustly estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species using either presence-only and/or presence–absence data. Managers can then focus control and/or containment actions within the current distribution and establish surveillance monitoring to detect incursions within the potential distribution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using presence‐only and presence–absence data to estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species

Gormley

Forsyth

Griffioen³

et al. 2010

Journal of Applied Ecology

181

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results indicate that transect surveys or point counts could be used by biologists to assess whether bobolink are finished breeding in a field. Transect surveys and point counts provide an efficient survey option compared to spot mapping and nest monitoring, which are more labor intensive (Thompson et al 1998). Common conservation guidelines in Ontario suggest delaying livestock grazing and hay harvest until mid‐July to avoid negative effects on nesting bobolink (MECP 2015, OSCIA 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining When Bobolink Finish Breeding to Time Agricultural Activity in Nesting Refuges

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation actions are ongoing for the federally and provincially threatened bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) in Ontario, Canada because of population declines. One conservation action being implemented in agricultural grasslands is the delay of hay harvesting and livestock grazing until 15 July, a general guideline for when bobolink finish breeding. Efficient methods to assess when breeding ceases could benefit bobolink and farmers engaged in conservation by ensuring nesting is finished before agricultural activity occurs and enabling agricultural activity earlier when breeding is finished before 15 July. We conducted field surveys to assess if low‐intensity surveys (i.e., transect surveys, point counts, roadside counts) could accurately detect when bobolink finish breeding compared to intensive monitoring (i.e., spot mapping and nest monitoring). We monitored 29 pastures in 2017 in eastern Ontario and 9 hay fields, 10 restored grasslands, and 6 fallow fields in 2018 in southern Ontario. The date breeding finished varied across fields in 2017 from 13 June to 29 July and in 2018 from 24 June to 30 July, based on spot mapping and nest monitoring. Transect surveys and point counts were good predictors of breeding in a field, as confirmed through spot mapping and nest monitoring, based on generalized linear mixed models. We recommend using transect surveys or point counts as an efficient field method to assess when bobolink finish breeding in a field targeted for bobolink conservation. Our results suggest that 2 consecutive visits that fail to detect evidence of breeding in early July are needed to reasonably infer that breeding has likely finished, leaving a small probability (i.e., <0.01) that breeding may still be occurring. Determining when bobolink finish breeding in fields intended to provide nesting refuges can help maximize conservation benefits and minimize negative effects on agricultural production. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…Segments were classified into strata based on counts of nests from 1998 to 2005, and defined as low (<2 nests), medium (2–9 nests), and high (>9 nests) density. Sampling intensity in each stratum was determined using Neyman allocation [38] and a total of 37 different 2-km segments were randomly selected for surveys in years 2006–2009. We selected fewer segments in 2006, but in 2009 we selected 7 additional segments because increasing water level inundated 1 and markedly reduced available habitat on other segments (Table 4).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection Indicates Preference in Diverse Habitats: A Ground-Nesting Bird (Charadrius melodus) Using Reservoir Shoreline

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals use proximate cues to select resources that maximize individual fitness. When animals have a diverse array of available habitats, those selected could give insights into true habitat preferences. Since the construction of the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River in North Dakota, Lake Sakakawea (SAK) has become an important breeding area for federally threatened piping plovers (Charadrius melodus; hereafter plovers). We used conditional logistic regression to examine nest-site selection at fine scales (1, 3, and 10 m) during summers 2006–2009 by comparing characteristics at 351 nests to those of 668 random sites within nesting territories. Plovers selected sites (1 m2) that were lower than unused random sites, increasing the risk of nest inundation. Plovers selected nest sites that were flat, had little silt, and at least 1 cobble; they also selected for 3-m radius nest areas that were relatively flat and devoid of vegetation and litter. Ninety percent of nests had <38% coverage of silt and <10% slope at the site, and <15% coverage of vegetation or litter and <31% slope within the 3-m radius. Gravel was selected for at nest sites (11% median), but against in the area 10-m from the nest, suggesting plovers select for patches or strips of gravel. Although elevation is rarely evaluated in studies of ground-nesting birds, our results underscore its importance in habitat-selection studies. Relative to where plovers historically nested, habitat at SAK has more diverse topography, substrate composition, vegetation communities, and greater water-level fluctuations. Accordingly, our results provide an example of how habitat-selection results can be interpreted as habitat preferences because they are not influenced by desired habitats being scarce or absent. Further, our results will be useful for directing habitat conservation for plovers and interpreting other habitat-selection studies.

show abstract

Birds

Cited by 12 publications

References 70 publications

Using presence‐only and presence–absence data to estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species

Using presence‐only and presence–absence data to estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species

Determining When Bobolink Finish Breeding to Time Agricultural Activity in Nesting Refuges

Selection Indicates Preference in Diverse Habitats: A Ground-Nesting Bird (Charadrius melodus) Using Reservoir Shoreline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About