Refining reintroduction of whooping cranes with habitat use and suitability analysis

Abstract

A successful species reintroduction depends, in part, on the correct identification of suitable habitats. In cases where a species has been extirpated from a region for decades, however, this task is fraught with uncertainty. Uncertainty can be minimized and adjusted for by monitoring and adaptive management. The central goal of this study was to identify reintroduction sites that facilitate dispersion of whooping cranes (Grus americana), a federally listed endangered species, into optimal habitat as quickly as possible. First, we described the habitat selection of breeding home ranges for reintroduced whooping cranes in and around Necedah National Wildlife Refuge of central Wisconsin. We defined home ranges as 95% fixed spatial kernel density estimates from location data gathered from nesting whooping cranes from April through July 2005–2010. Whooping crane home ranges contained more emergent herbaceous wetlands than expected by chance and less developed or barren land, forest, and scrubland. Breeding whooping crane home ranges usually were composed of distinct nesting territories and off‐territory elements; when moving off‐territory, cranes decreased wetland selection and increased selection for open uplands. Second, we used habitat composition values and strength of selection (as determined by Jacob's index) to create a habitat suitability map to identify potential habitats that breeding whooping cranes could use in unoccupied eastern Wisconsin. With this method, we identified 2 large suitable wetland complexes within our study area associated with the Fox and Rock Rivers. Based on this analysis, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership began releasing whooping cranes into White River Marsh State Wildlife Area and Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in 2011. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

The dilemma of pest suppression in the conservation of endangered species

“…2018 a ), crane‐habitat surveys (Van Schmidt et al. ), and our stream surveys for larval black flies suggested potential new reintroduction areas in eastern Wisconsin (e.g., Horicon National Wildlife Refuge). Crane releases began in these new areas in 2011.…”

“…A reintroduction program on the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (NNWR) in central Wisconsin began in 2001, but releases were moved to areas mostly east of NNWR beginning in 2011 (Van Schmidt et al. ). Individuals in the EMP—now about 100 birds—successfully survive, forage, migrate, form pairs, construct nests, and produce eggs (Servanty et al.…”

“…To compare the abundance of adult black flies on NNWR with that in possible nesting habitat elsewhere in Wisconsin (Van Schmidt et al. ), we surveyed NNWR and 7 additional sites in 2010 (Fig. ).…”

“…Reintroductions of the eastern migratory population (EMP) and recent (2011) Louisiana nonmigratory population are ongoing (Converse et al 2018a). A reintroduction program on the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (NNWR) in central Wisconsin began in 2001, but releases were moved to areas mostly east of NNWR beginning in 2011 (Van Schmidt et al 2014). Individuals in the EMP-now about 100 birdssuccessfully survive, forage, migrate, form pairs, construct nests, and produce eggs (Servanty et al 2014;Converse et al 2018a).…”

Diurnal habitat selection of migrating Whooping Crane in the Great Plains

“…Since the mid-1900s, management of the federally endangered Whooping Crane has included research on major aspects of its annual cycle, including wintering and breeding grounds and, more recently, stopover sites during migration (Allen 1952, Pearse et al 2017a. Past research has identified major riverine systems and palustrine wetlands as important roosting habitats for migrating Whooping Crane (Faanes and Bowman 1992, Weddle 1996, Van Schmidt et al 2014. The Big Bend reach of the central Platte River in Nebraska, USA, has been the focus of several Whooping Crane studies, and recent management efforts have been directed at increasing the quantity and quality of riverine roosting sites for Whooping Crane after decades of degradation (Faanes and Bowman 1992, Stahlecker 1997, Davis 2003, Pfeiffer and Currier 2005, PRRIP 2017).…”