Relationships between grazing and waterfowl production in the Canadian prairies

Abstract

The survival of waterfowl nests is positively correlated with the amount of grassland on the landscape, and population growth rates of some waterfowl species (e.g., mallards [Anas platyrhynchos]) are sensitive to nest survival rates. Thus, the effect of actions that alter grassland vegetation physiognomy, such as grazing, on waterfowl production is of interest to waterfowl habitat managers. Additionally, grasslands contribute other ecological goods (e.g., forage for livestock and wildlife) and services (e.g., photosynthesis, carbon sequestration), which can be influenced by grazing practices. We address key uncertainties about the linkages between grazing, vegetation physiognomy, and the survival and density of duck nests at study‐site, field, and nest‐site spatial scales. Using data from 2,554 duck nests found in 434 grazed or idled fields (median field size = 48.0 ha) in the Canadian Prairie Pothole Region between 2002 and 2009, we found that vegetation physiognomy affected nest survival at both the field and nest‐site scales, such that nest survival increased with nest‐site vegetation density and late‐season field vegetation density. Nest survival also responded to early‐season within‐field variation in vegetation height in a quadratic manner, such that survival was greatest in fields with moderate variation in vegetation height. Nest survival was negatively related to the intensity of grazing and to the amount of cropland in the surrounding landscape. Both the abundance of wetlands and the average vegetation height in the field had a positive influence on nest density. Fields idled during the breeding season had greater densities of nests than fields grazed either early or late in the breeding season. Leaving lands idled may be the most effective way to increase both waterfowl nest survival and nest density. When management of upland vegetation is required, we recommend grazing at moderate stocking rates (between 2 and 2.5 animal unit months [AUM]/ha) after the waterfowl breeding season is complete and monitoring vegetative characteristics to ensure they remain suitable to attract nesting waterfowl (e.g., leaving vegetation height >28 cm). Where grazing must be carried out during the breeding season, low to moderate stocking rates should be encouraged as these rates appear to have the least negative impact on both waterfowl nest survival and nest density. These stocking rates also will maintain rangeland in good condition to the long‐term benefit of producers. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

Principal threats to the conservation of freshwater habitats in the continental biogeographical region of Central Europe

“…Tierney et al (1998);Friberg et al (1998);Sievers et al (2017) Reforestation-it may be assumed that on balance the impacts of reforestation using native species should be positive for freshwater biodiversity in the . (2019);Bloom et al (2013);Abell et al (2019);Beltran et al (2011);Hein et al (2018) …”

Nest Site Selection Influences Cinnamon Teal Nest Survival in Colorado

“…The closely related blue-winged teal has similarly been shown to select nest sites in grassland rather than sites with other plant compositions (Klett et al 1988). The availability of grasslands is often associated with increased nest survival rates, but the direct effects of forbs at a nest site have not been frequently quantified for waterfowl (Stephens et al 2005, Thompson et al 2012, Bloom et al 2013. Studies examining the effects of forbs at nesting sites have indicated that the presence of forbs can result in higher probabilities of selection and nest survival of ground-nesting species (Arnold et al 2007, Arbeiter and Franke 2018, Sherfy et al 2018, Dixon et al 2019, Lautenbach et al 2019.…”

Freshwater biodiversity conservation through source water protection: Quantifying the potential and addressing the challenges

“…The relationship between animal grazing and freshwater ecosystems is complicated. Because grasslands can require natural disturbance or active management to prevent succession to forest, grazing at certain levels and times of the year may be an appropriate and necessary activity in some systems, and can contribute to maintaining native freshwater biodiversity (Bloom, Howerter, Emery, & Armstrong, 2013;Marty, 2015;Mester, Szalai, Mero, Puky, & Lengyel, 2015); however, overgrazing can have impacts on sediment and nutrient delivery, as well as on hydrology. Furthermore, livestock congregating in riparian zones and entering streams in order to cross or gain access to water can have direct impacts on stream banks and can introduce bacterial and nutrient contaminants into the water, as well as increase sediments (Fitch & Adams, 1998).…”