Assessing wetland habitat quality for Sandhill Cranes (
-
Upload
lindsey-marshall -
Category
Documents
-
view
94 -
download
0
Transcript of Assessing wetland habitat quality for Sandhill Cranes (
Assessing wetland habitat quality for Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) in Colorado Lindsey PowerSenior Honor’s thesis
Outline
Introduction About the study area and Sandhill Cranes Methods Results Discussion
Introduction
Graduating senior Fish, wildlife and conservation biology major Influential classes: Ornithology and Natural resource law and policy
Lower South Platte River Basin Northeastern CO Front Range and eastern plains Habitats used by Sandhill cranes:
Emergent Marsh Playa Sandbar River channel Wet meadow Recharge pond/moist soil unit
Lemly, J and Gilligan, L. 2015. Wetlands of the Lower South Platte River Basin: Extent, condition and habitat quality. CNHP
Sandhill cranes CPW priority species: Greater Sandhill
Crane Stopover on Central Flyway in fall and
spring Most found on Central Platte River in
Nebraska Staging habitat
Shallow water, broad channels, sparse vegetation, close to feeding
Shallow water, agriculture fields
Methods: Reviewing habitat indices Thresholds – review, revise
Roosting index: Modified herb cover, patch width, dominant veg Added herb height, river channel, sandbar; removed water cover emergent Feeding index: dominant veg, water depth, herb height
Version 2
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding DVCDominant Vegetation Category Like "[CEF]" GH Like "[ABDIJKL]" M, P 1.00
A lot of sites out of range for a couple variables.
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding HCV Herb Cover >= 80 Between 60 And 79.99 Between 30 And 59.99 < 30 0.95
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding WPDAWater Predominant Depth Actual < = 5 Between 5.01 And 35 Between 35.01 And 50 > 50 0.95
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding HHT Herb Height Class = 1 = 2 = 3 > 3 0.90
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding LVSACRLandscape Value Model for Sandhill Cranes >= 66 Between 33 And 65.99 > 33 1.00
Methods: Data analysis
One-way ANOVA H0 = There is no difference in means between sandhill crane habitats Ha = There is a difference in means
Tukey’s HSD Post-hoc Which habitats differ most?
Results
Emergent Marsh
Playa Recharge pond/Moist
soil unit
River channel
Sandbar0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Sandhill Roosting
Aver
age
over
all s
core
C
A
B AB
BC
Emergent Marsh Recharge Pond/Moist soil unit
Wet Meadow0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Sandhill Feeding
Aver
age
over
all s
core
AA
B
ANOVA results: F = 7.9973; F-crit = 3.1866; df = 2; p = 0.000987
ANOVA results: F = 8.8218; F-crit = 2.4954; df = 4; p = 7.02x10-6
Water depthHerb cover
Herb heightPatch width
Dom Veg
Interspersion
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
Sandhill Roosting - Emergent marsh (C)
Aver
age
scor
e
Water depthHerb cover
Herb height
Patch widthDom Veg
Interspersion
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500Sandhill Roosting - Playa (A)
Aver
age
scor
eWater depth
Herb cover
Herb height
Patch widthDom Veg
Interspersion
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
Sandhill Roosting - Recharge Pond (B)
Aver
age
scor
e
Water depthHerb cover
Herb height
Patch widthDom Veg
Interspersion
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500Sandhill Roosting - Sandbar (BC)
Aver
age
scor
e
Water depthHerb cover
Herb height
Patch widthDom Veg
Interspersion
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500Sandhill Roosting - River channel (AB)
Aver
age
scor
e
Dom VegHerb cover
Water depthHerb height
Landscape value0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.500
Sandhill Feeding - Emergent marsh (B)
Aver
age
Scor
e
Dom VegHerb cover
Water depthHerb height
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
Sandhill Feeding - Recharge pond (A)
Aver
age
scor
e
Dom VegHerb cover
Water depthHerb height
Landscape value0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
Sandhill Feeding - Wet meadow (A)
Aver
age
scor
e
Results Sandhill Roosting:
Emergent marsh on average scored lowest – patch width, water depth, herb cover
Playa scored highest – herb height, dominant vegetation, patch width Feeding:
Emergent marsh lowest – dominant veg, herb height
Discussion: Management recommendations Herb height: dominant vegetation Water depth: diverting/augmenting
Discussion: Scoring and evaluation process Field data collection and timing of species use of habitat Variables, thresholds, and weights Other possible analyses
Discussion: Future research priorities
Current research on occurrence or presence/absence of priority species Existing data Conducting surveys
Thresholds Revisit some sites
The North American Breeding Bird Survey; http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/genintro.htm
Conclusion
Valuable insight into accuracy of scoring methods Future research questions and analyses Experience for future personal research, stakeholder interactions, other
evaluation processes, etc.
Thank you! Any Questions? Literature Cited Boykin, K.G., Kepner, W.G., Bradford, D.F., Guy, R.K., Kopp, D.A., Leimer, A.K., Samson, E.A., East, N.F., Neale, A.C., Gergely, K.J. 2012. A national approach for
mapping a quantifying habitat-based biodiversity metrics across multiple spatial scales. Ecological Indicators. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.005 Colorado Natural Heritage Program. (CNHP) 2013. “Field Key to Wetland Habitat Types in the Lower South Platte River Basin, Colorado”. 24 May 2013. Colorado
Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2011. Statewide strategies for wetland and riparian conservation: Strategic plan for the wetland wildlife conservation program.
Version 2.0. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado. International Crane Foundation (ICF). 1983. Cranes of the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Online. http://www.savingcranes.org/sandhill-crane.html Kessler, A.C., Merchant, J.W., Allen, C.R., Shultz, S.D. 2011. Invasive plants and sandhill crane roosting habitat. Invasive plant science and management. 4:369 –
377. Kinzel, P.J., Nelson, J.M, Parker, R.S. 2005. Assessing Sandhill Crane roosting habitat along the Platte River, Nebraska. USDOI, USGS fact sheet. Krapu, G.L., Brandt, D.A., Kinzel, P.J., Pearse, A.T. 2014. Spring migration ecology of the mid-continent sandhill crane population with an emphasis on use of the
Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska. Wildlife Monographs. 189:1-41. Lemly, J., Gilligan, L. 2012 North Platte River Basin wetland profile and condition assessment. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Lemly, J., L. Gilligan, and M. Fink. 2011. Statewide strategies to improve effectiveness in protecting and restoring Colorado’s wetland resource, including the Rio
Grande Headwaters pilot wetland condition assessment. Prepared for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Wetland Program Development Grant Assistance ID No. CD-97874301-0.
Lemly, J., Gilligan, L., Smith, G. 2014. Lower South Platte River Basin profile and condition assessment., Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ortega, C. P. 2013. Habitat quality for wetland-dependent priority wildlife species in the Lower South Platte River Basin, Colorado: species assessments and
monitoring protocols. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Environmental Protection Agency. Stone, K.R. 2009. Stone, Katharine R. 2009. Grus canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/