Waterbird Response to Wetlands Restored Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Abstract

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)

Pesticide concentrations in frog tissue and wetland habitats in a landscape dominated by agriculture

“…The Des Moines Lobe hosts 72 of these CREP sites in 29 counties. The resulting wetlands appear to provide additional ecosystem services such as habitat for migrating waterfowl (O'Neal et al, 2008), however, for many organisms, such as amphibians the related costs of living within a matrix of highly modified habitat have not been determined. For example, the value of increased habitat for species with low vagility (e.g., amphibians) is assumed to be high, but benefits may be negated if the quality of the habitat is insufficient to support amphibian populations' overtime.…”

Assessment of Bird Response to the Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative Using Weather-Surveillance Radar

“…Not sur prisingly, the intensity of moist soil management had an important effect on wintering waterfowl response, as others have found for birds during spring and summer (Kaminski et al 2006, O'Neal et al 2008. WRP sites with the greatest increases in site soil wetness after resto ration had the greatest post-restoration waterfowl use.…”

Impacts of ecological restoration and human activities on habitat of overwintering migratory birds in the wetland of Poyang Lake, Jiangxi Province, China

“…The primary objective of the RFL project was to regulate floods, and it focused on hydrological restoration measures such as removing dikes that also increased the area of wetlands and improved the habitat quality for migratory birds. O'Neal et al (2008) also found that successful hydrological restoration measures improved habitat quality and increased waterfowl populations. However, our study also shows that despite of restoration activities, change of many other human activities, such as discontinuing of cultivation, also has great contribution in improving the habitat.…”

“…Our research work also showed that even though the restoration work was not targeted at waterfowl and had not been implemented for a long time, the restoration engineering (and especially the RFL project) can improve habitats in the study sites. The management of wetland habitats to restore favorable characteristics can benefit habitats of diverse waterfowl species (Erwin and Beck 2007;O'Neal et al 2008;Ma et al 2010). Fang et al (2006) also showed that the RFL project improved biodiversity in the Poyang Lake wetland, and that the populations of some overwintering migratory birds increased.…”