Post-fledging Golden-winged Warblers require forests with multiple stand developmental stages

Abstract

Our understanding of songbird habitat needs during the breeding season stems largely from studies of nest success. However, growing evidence shows that nesting habitat and post-fledging habitat often differ. Management guidelines for declining species need to be reevaluated and updated to account for habitat shifts that may occur across the full breeding cycle. The Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) is a declining songbird species for which best management practices (BMPs) are based overwhelmingly on nesting habitat. We studied stand-scale habitat selection by fledgling Golden-winged Warblers during May–July, 2014–2017, in 2 landscapes (2 yr of data for each landscape), 200 km apart in Pennsylvania. Across 4 yr, we radio-tagged and tracked 156 fledglings. We used discrete-choice models to evaluate habitat selection during 2 post-fledging time periods (days 1–5, days 6–28). Fledglings used a variety of cover types, but most telemetry relocations (i.e. 85%) occurred in forest in the stand initiation stage, stem exclusion stage, or mature forest upland. Fledglings primarily selected stand initiation forest during the first 5 days, but preferred habitats differed between regions during days 6–28 post-fledging. Fledglings in one landscape favored stands in the stem exclusion stage while fledglings in the other landscape continued to select stands in the initiation stage. Fledglings moved greater distances as they aged and dispersed ~750 m by day 28 post-fledging. These findings suggest the need to update Golden-winged Warbler BMPs to account for the broader habitat needs of fledglings during the breeding season. In addition, these results indicate that regional studies of habitat requirements can help guide management of dynamic forest landscapes for birds.

Evaluating Golden‐winged Warbler use of alder and aspen communities managed with shearing in the western Great Lakes

“…This finding supports the idea that, when managing stands with a high sapling or shrub density, shearing should be conducted in such a way that some existing saplings and shrubs are retained in the stand to support structural heterogeneity (Roth et al, 2019). Additionally, previous studies have found that a diversity of forest ages and structures, including dense sapling stands unsuitable for nesting, are important foraging habitat for postfledging Golden-winged Warblers (Fiss et al, 2020(Fiss et al, , 2021Streby et al, 2016), so maintaining patches of taller saplings within sheared areas will likely support Golden-winged Warblers during both nesting and postfledging periods.…”

“…Future work that quantifies Golden‐winged Warbler nest productivity and fledgling survival (i.e., full season productivity) at sheared sites would improve our understanding of the quality of the habitat created by the shearing BMPs. With that in mind, sites treated with a variety of conservation practices outlined in the Golden‐winged Warbler BMPs can yield high rates of nest survival (McNeil et al, 2017; McNeil, Rodewald, Robinson, et al, 2020) and fledgling survival (Fiss et al, 2020, 2021; Streby et al, 2016).…”

Post‐fledging ecology of endangered Golden‐cheeked Warblers

“…1) to avoid predators and forage (Anders and Faaborg 1998, Cohen and Lindell 2004, Streby and Peterson 2016, Fiss et al. 2020, Stillman et al. 2021).…”

Assessing golden‐winged warbler dispersal habitat in a highly parcelized landscape

“…Although Streby et al (2014) did not detect evidence of prospecting behavior by fledglings during dispersal, familiarity with potential nesting habitat gained during dispersal from their natal site should facilitate population expansion by first year breeders. Structural heterogeneity and microhabitat structure within stands may drive nest site selection and post‐fledgling habitat use (Fiss et al 2020). In Pennsylvania, fledglings dispersed a maximum of 3.6 km, through multiple stand types including stand initiation and stem exclusion conditions (Fiss et al 2020).…”

“…Structural heterogeneity and microhabitat structure within stands may drive nest site selection and post‐fledgling habitat use (Fiss et al 2020). In Pennsylvania, fledglings dispersed a maximum of 3.6 km, through multiple stand types including stand initiation and stem exclusion conditions (Fiss et al 2020). After their first migration, returning birds disperse to new nesting sites <5 km from their previous nesting sites (R. Vallender, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, unpublished data).…”