Winter Ecology of Piping Plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina

Cohen, Jonathan B.; Karpanty, Sarah M.; Catlin, Daniel H.; Fraser, James D.; Fischer, Richard A.

doi:10.1675/1524-4695-31.3.472

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, Cohen et al . ). Human activity has the potential to greatly alter the ecology of coastal sites, directly by movement of sediment (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Cohen et al . ). Examples of lower winter survival have been associated with extreme weather events and an oil spill (Noel et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Cohen et al . ). For input, these models required the number of times each uniquely marked bird was resighted on the two surveys, the total number of unringed birds counted on the two surveys and the total number of birds that were seen to be ringed but not identified to individual.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Cohen et al . ), we assumed that we were sampling from an approximately 2.5‐km radius around each site. Bird Key Stono (32.63°N, 79.98°W) was a shoal island containing large areas of open low wave energy intertidal substrate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

State uncertainty models and mark‐resight models for understanding non‐breeding site use by Piping Plovers

Cohen

Maddock

Bimbi

et al. 2017

Ibis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation of beach‐nesting medium‐distance migrants has focused on breeding areas because protection of nests is more tractable than protection of non‐breeding habitat. As breeding ground management has encountered diminishing returns, interest in understanding threats in non‐breeding areas has increased. However, robust estimates of non‐breeding demographic rates and abundance are generally lacking, hindering the study of limiting factors. Estimating such rates is made more difficult by complex population dynamics at non‐breeding sites. In South Carolina, endangered Piping Plovers Charadrius melodus start arriving in July and some depart prior to December (the autumn‐only population) while others remain through at least March (the wintering population). State uncertainty capture‐mark‐recapture models provide a means for estimating vital rates for such co‐occurring populations. We estimated the proportion of the population entering the study area per survey (entry probability) and proportion remaining per survey (persistence rate) for both populations during autumn, and abundance of the wintering population, at four sites in South Carolina in 2006/7 and 2007/8, taking advantage of birds previously colour‐ringed on the breeding grounds. We made fairly precise estimates of entry and persistence rates with small sample sizes. Cumulative entry probability was ~50% by the end of July and reached 95% for both populations by October. Estimated stopover duration for birds in the autumn‐only population was 35 days in year 1 and 42 days in year 2. We estimated a wintering super‐population size of 71 ± 16 se birds in the first year and 75 ± 16 in the second. If ringing programmes on the breeding grounds continue, standardized resighting surveys in the non‐breeding period and mark‐recapture models can provide robust estimates of entry and persistence rates and abundance. Habitat protection intended to benefit non‐breeding Piping Plovers at our coastal sites should be in effect by late summer, as many birds are resident from July to the end of winter.

show abstract

“…, Cohen et al . ). Human activity has the potential to greatly alter the ecology of coastal sites, directly by movement of sediment (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Cohen et al . ). Examples of lower winter survival have been associated with extreme weather events and an oil spill (Noel et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

State uncertainty models and mark‐resight models for understanding non‐breeding site use by Piping Plovers

Cohen

Maddock

Bimbi

et al. 2017

Ibis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is controversy about the effectiveness of nest protection techniques. Nest protection includes nest enclosures (predator exclosures), electrified wires on enclosures, fencing (mainly for people), wardening, predator control, and captive breeding (Burger 1987b;Murphy et al 2003;White and McMaster 2005;Cohen et al 2008Cohen et al , 2009Maslo and Lockwood 2009). Beach nourishment increases habitat for Piping Plover (Webster 2006).…”

Section: Piping Plovermentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Resources of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Burger¹

2017

Habitats and Biota of the Gulf of Mexico: Before the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adult piping plover habitat selection varies by behavior

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus, "plover") are beach-nesting shorebirds that occupy their breeding range from about April to August. When plovers arrive on the breeding grounds, they select and defend territories, lay and incubate eggs, and tend to precocial broods; additionally, adults can return to a non-breeding stage after final nest failure or after chicks have fledged or died. We hypothesized that habitat selection would differ among these phases of the breeding cycle because the needs of the birds differ among them. We monitored plovers on Fire Island and Westhampton Island, New York, during 2016-2018, recording individual locations of adult birds. We used resource selection functions to determine whether breeding stage (pre-breeding, nesting, brooding, post-breeding), breeding status (breeding, nonbreeding), or instantaneous behavior class (parental [incubating, brooding, and accompanying chicks], non-parental [all other behaviors]) best explained relationships with landscape characteristics known to be important to breeding plovers. Differences in habitat selection between adults exhibiting parental behaviors and non-parental behaviors had the greatest support in our model set. Compared with non-parental plovers, plovers displaying parental behavior selected areas closer to bay intertidal habitats and with proportionally more dry sand in the surrounding landscape than other habitat types. Non-parental plovers avoided areas with more dry sand and did not select for or against bay intertidal habitats. Additionally, non-parental plovers avoided development and higher elevation areas more than parental plovers, although both exhibited avoidance of these features. The total amount of suitable habitat ranged from 100.14 ha to 151.07 ha. In each year, there was more suitable habitat for parental plovers (129.57-151.07 ha) than non-parental plovers (100.14-108.83 ha). Due to these differences, when improving, creating, and protecting plover habitat, managers should consider habitat needs of both behavioral classes. Habitat management for nesting and brooding plovers should focus on maintaining vegetation-free sand and access to foraging habitat, and habitat management for non-parental plovers should focus on flat, low-elevation foraging habitats, particularly areas further from development.

show abstract

Winter Ecology of Piping Plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

State uncertainty models and mark‐resight models for understanding non‐breeding site use by Piping Plovers

State uncertainty models and mark‐resight models for understanding non‐breeding site use by Piping Plovers

Avian Resources of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Adult piping plover habitat selection varies by behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About