Use of Restored Small Wetlands by Breeding Waterfowl in Prince Edward Island, Canada

Stevens, Cameron E.; Gabor, T. Shane; Diamond, Antony W.

doi:10.1046/j.1526-100x.2003.00107.x

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such considerations would likely improve the regional enrollment process. Nonetheless, our results support the notion that basic, site-level conditions essential to wetland function and persistence should be the priority when restoring waterbird habitat through CREP (Stevens et al 2003). Investing in hydrologic planning and infrastructure to facilitate effective restoration and management, combined with monitoring compliance and development of site-specific restoration goals, should take precedence over concerns about location and landscape context.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…Distance to Illinois River (DIST). Waterbirds are believed to migrate in explicit geographic corridors that often follow major rivers (Bellrose 1980) and waterfowl species richness in restored wetlands may correlate positively with proximity to a river (Stevens et al 2003). Therefore, we included distance (km) of wetlands from the Illinois River in some models of migratory use and species richness of waterbirds.…”

Section: Analytical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Waterbird Response to Wetlands Restored Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

O’Neal¹,

Heske²,

Stafford³

2008

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation programs that facilitate restoration of natural areas on private land are one of the best strategies for recovery of valuable wetland acreage in critical ecoregions of the United States. Wetlands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) provide many ecological functions but may be particularly important as habitat for migrant and resident waterbirds; however, use of, and factors associated with use of, CREP wetlands as stopover and breeding sites have not been evaluated. We surveyed a random sample of CREP wetlands in the Illinois River watershed in 2004 and 2005 to quantify use of restored wetlands by spring migrating and breeding waterbirds. Waterbirds used 75% of wetlands during spring migration. Total use‐day abundance for the entire spring migration ranged from 0 to 49,633 per wetland and averaged 6,437 ± 1,887 (SE). Semipermanent wetlands supported the greatest total number of use‐days and the greatest number of use‐days relative to wetland area. Species richness ranged from 0 to 42 (x̄ = 10.0 ± 1.5 [SE]), and 5 of these species were classified as endangered in Illinois. Density of waterfowl breeding pairs ranged from 0.0 pairs/ha to 16.6 pairs/ha (x̄ = 1.9 ± 0.5 [SE] pairs/ha), and 16 species of wetland birds were identified as local breeders. Density of waterfowl broods ranged from 0.0 broods/ha to 3.6 broods/ha and averaged 0.5 ± 0.1 (SE) broods/ha. We also modeled spring stopover use, waterbird species richness, and waterfowl reproduction in relation to spatial, physical, and floristic characteristics of CREP wetlands. The best approximating models to explain variation in all 3 dependent variables included only the covariate accounting for level of hydrologic management (i.e., none, passive, or active). Active management was associated with 858% greater use‐days during spring than sites with only passive water management. Sites where hydrology was passively managed also averaged 402% greater species richness than sites where no hydrologic management was possible. Density of waterfowl broods was 120% greater on passively managed sites than on sites without water management but was 29% less on sites with active compared to passive hydrologic management. Densities of waterfowl broods also were greatest when ratios of open water to cover were 70:30. Models that accounted for vegetation quality and landscape variables ranked lower than models based solely on hydrologic management or vegetation cover in all candidate sets. Although placement and clustering of sites may be critical for maintaining populations of some wetland bird species, these factors appeared to be less important for attracting migrant waterbirds in our study area. In the context of restored CREP wetlands, we suggest the greatest gains in waterbird use and reproduction may be accomplished by emphasizing site‐specific restoration efforts related to hydrology and floristic structure. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):654–664; 2008)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Analytical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waterbird Response to Wetlands Restored Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

O’Neal¹,

Heske²,

Stafford³

2008

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This structural complexity probably improved the suitability of the habitat for a greater variety of oldfield and grasslanddependent birds (Cutright et al 2006). Stevens et al (2003) reported higher use of scrub-shrub restored wetlands than of open grassland wetlands by Mallards, suggesting that woody cover may provide important visual isolation for Cutright et al (2006) list upland shrub or lowland shrub as the preferred habitat for many of the species that increased in abundance in our wetlands over the 10-year study period. In addition to increases in woody cover at the margins of these wetland restorations, cattail has expanded and become dense in much of what was formerly shallow open water (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The loss of many wetland-dependent waterfowl species from our study sites is likely due to a reduction in the amount of open water habitat available. Vegetation cover to open water ratio in small wetlands has been shown to affect bird richness, abundance, and community composition (Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001;Stevens et al 2003, O'Neil et al 2008. Migrating birds use general landscape features to identify potential nesting and feeding habitats (Orians and Wittenberger 1991;Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001), and waterfowl typically use restored wetlands as soon as they contain standing water (LaGrange and Dinsmore 1989, Sewell and Higgins 1991;Delphey and Dinsmore 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Succession in Small Created and Restored Wetlands

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We described the change in avian use over time in small created and restored wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin. Quantitative avian surveys were conducted in 28 sites ranging in age from 11 to 15 years and compared to data collected in the same sites in 1994. Bird species were categorized into ruderal, wetland, and oldfield habitat guilds. The density of bird use was compared between survey years. We tested for significant effects of wetland age, size, and landscape variables on avian use. The total number of bird species using the restorations increased by 35% over the 10-year period, although the average number of bird species recorded in each wetland during a single visit did not change significantly. There was also a substantial shift from wetland to oldfield habitat guilds resulting from a net loss of 5 wetland-dependent bird species and a net gain of 19 oldfield and 2 ruderal bird species. Mean bird density increased from 13.5 birds per hectare in 1994 to 58.2 in 2004. Our results suggest that although conservation wetlands and their associated buffers initially provide avian habitat for many wetland-dependent bird species, structural changes in the plant community over time create habitat increasingly favored by grassland/shrubland birds.

show abstract

“…We determined reproductive activity indirectly from observations of reproductive behavior including pairing, food and nest material carrying, and the presence of fledglings (sensu Vickery et al 1992;Gunn et al 2000;Doran et al 2005). Determining the relationship between point count data and reproductive indices is useful in light of the increased use of these indices in bird habitat studies (Vickery et al 1992;Dale et al 1997;Powell and Collier 1998;Martin and Morrison 1999;Rangen et al 2000;Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2003;Christoferson and Morrison 2001;Harris and Reed 2002;Stevens et al 2003). If point count data can effectively predict reproductive activity, the additional effort expended to collect reproductive activity data may be unnecessary.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Point count summary statistics differentially predict reproductive activity in bird-habitat relationship studies

Betts¹,

Simon

Nocera

2005

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Point count summary statistics (e.g. mean abundance, maximum abundance, frequency and presence/ absence) reflect different assumptions about behavioral and population processes. In this paper we (1) determine the frequency and usage trends of different point count summary statistics in recent ornithological literature, and (2) assess how well point count data, summarized using five common statistics, predict an alternate measure of habitat quality-reproductive activity. For the 100 journal years we reviewed (10 journals over 10 years), 148 papers used point counts to evaluate bird habitat relationships. The number of papers using point counts has increased over the decade. Mean abundance, the most common summary statistic, was used more than twice as frequently as the next most common summary statistics. Only 25.7% (38 papers) provided a justification for use of a particular summary technique. We conducted point counts in three Canadian study regions (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador) comprised of two ecosystem types (forest and grassland). While there was a statistically significant positive correlation between point count data and reproductive activity data for most species, we found that point counts were often unsuccessful at predicting reproductive activity in forest birds. For species where point counts adequately predicted reproductive activity mean abundance and frequency were consistently the best predictors. Our results indicate that statistics using information on intra-season (multiple-visit) occupancy tend to be better estimators of reproductive activity.

show abstract

Use of Restored Small Wetlands by Breeding Waterfowl in Prince Edward Island, Canada

Cited by 29 publications

References 32 publications

Waterbird Response to Wetlands Restored Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Waterbird Response to Wetlands Restored Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Avian Succession in Small Created and Restored Wetlands

Point count summary statistics differentially predict reproductive activity in bird-habitat relationship studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About