Waterbird communities and seed biomass in managed and reference‐restored wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Abstract

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) commenced the Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative (MBHI) in summer 2010 after the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The MBHI enrolled in the program 193,000 ha of private wet‐ and cropland inland from potential oil‐impaired wetlands. We evaluated waterfowl and other waterbird use and potential seed/tuber food resources in NRCS Wetland Reserve Program easement wetlands managed via MBHI funding and associated reference wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. In Louisiana and Mississippi, nearly three times more dabbling ducks and all ducks combined were observed on managed than reference wetlands. Shorebirds and waterbirds other than waterfowl were nearly twice as abundant on managed than referenced wetlands. In Arkansas and Missouri, managed wetlands had over twice more dabbling ducks and nearly twice as many duck species than reference wetlands. Wetlands managed via MBHI in Mississippi and Louisiana contained ≥1.3 times more seed and tuber biomass known to be consumed by waterfowl than reference wetlands. Seed and tuber resources did not differ between wetlands in Arkansas and Missouri. While other studies have documented greater waterbird densities on actively than nonmanaged wetlands, our results highlighted the potential for initiatives focused on managing conservation easements to increase waterbird use and energetic carrying capacity of restored wetlands for waterbirds.

Public–Private Partnership Wetland Restorations Provide Quality Forage for Waterfowl in Northern New York

“…Our results are similar to those of other studies that have examined vegetative forage quality at publicprivate partnership wetland restorations. They also suggest that restorations provide quality forage for waterfowl and that they are generally providing resources that are similar to or exceed those found at reference wetlands (Brown 1999;Evans-Peters et al 2012;Fleming et al 2012Fleming et al , 2015Olmstead et al 2013;Tapp et al 2017). A majority of these studies was conducted in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, and the moist soil impoundments typical of this region are structurally distinct from the wetlands in the SLRV, which makes it difficult to use these studies to interpret our results (Rewa 2005(Rewa , 2007.…”

“…Postrestoration monitoring of public-private partnership wetland restorations indicate that programs are accomplishing their goals in terms of providing habitat for waterfowl and other wetland-associated wildlife, and that restorations are generally comparable with reference wetlands (e.g., Brown and Smith 1998;Rewa 2005Rewa , 2007Gray and Teels 2006;Tapp et al 2017;Benson et al 2018). However, one aspect of restoration success that has received limited attention is the quality of restored habitat, such as the availability of cover or food resources for wildlife (King et al 2006;Evans-Peters et al 2012;Fleming et al 2012;Olmstead et al 2013;Tapp et al 2017). Wetland vegetation diversity, composition, and structure are among the most important components of waterfowl habitat (Baldassarre and Bolen 2006;Ma et al 2010).…”

“…Several studies have examined the dynamics of waterfowl food resources at wetlands, but most have focused on wetlands on public land that use moist-soil management practices to enhance food production for waterfowl (e.g., Bowyer et al 2005;Greer et al 2007;Kross et al 2008;Hagy and Kaminski 2012a;Hagy et al 2014). However, wetlands restored via public-private partnership programs are likely not analogous to managed wetlands on public land, as restorations are generally smaller in size and management actions may be less consistent (King et al 2006;Brasher et al 2007;Evans-Peters et al 2012;Tapp et al 2017;Benson et al 2018). Fewer studies have characterized the availability of waterfowl food resources at public-private partnership wetland restorations (Brown 1999;Evans-Peters et al 2012;Fleming et al 2012Fleming et al , 2015Olmstead et al 2013;Tapp and Web 2015;Tapp et al 2017).…”

“…This includes the American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus, black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax, black tern Chlidonias niger, least bittern Ixobrychus exilis, piedbilled grebe Podilymbus podiceps, and sedge wren Cistothorus platensis (Brown and Smith 1998;NAWMP ACJV 2005;McGowan and Corwin 2008;Benson et al 2018). Thirteen of the 19 peer-reviewed studies that have evaluated vegetative forage for waterfowl have been conducted in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and Southeast regions (e.g., Bolduc and Afton 2004;Greer et al 2007;Kross et al 2008;Foster et al 2010;Olmstead et al 2013, Fleming et al 2015Tapp et al 2017). Therefore, this study provided an opportunity to assess waterfowl food resources in a region that provides important habitat for waterfowl in the Atlantic Flyway, but is underrepresented in the literature.…”

Are Waterfowl Food Resources Limited during Spring Migration? A Bioenergetic Assessment of Playas in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin

“…The current bioenergetic model used for wetland conservation planning in the RWB assumes seed biomass and TME estimates derived from actively managed wetlands in Southern United States during autumn (Kaminski et al 2003;Bishop and Vrtiska 2008). There is likely a spatial bias associated with these estimates as vegetative communities and seed production can vary across regions resulting from length of growing season at different latitudes (Olmstead et al 2013;Tapp et al 2017), annual precipitation (Casanova and Brock 2000), soil type (Reed 1988), and interactions with exotic or endemic species (Houlahan and Findlay 2004). In addition, seed biomass estimates developed during autumn would likely overestimate actual seed availability during spring, resulting depletion by autumn migrants and decomposition (Greer et al 2007;Brasher et al 2007;Hagy and Kaminski 2012;Williams et al 2014).…”