RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT TO INCREASE WHOOPING CRANE CHICK SURVIVAL ON NECEDAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Richard P. Urbanek, Ph.D. Wildlife Biologist

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge N11385 Headquarters Road

Necedah, WI 54646

- September 2015 -

RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT TO INCREASE WHOOPING CRANE CHICK SURVIVAL ON NECEDAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Richard P. Urbanek, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, N11385 Headquarters Road, Necedah, WI 54646

The Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) began establishment of a whooping crane (Grus americana) population breeding in central Wisconsin (i.e., Eastern Migratory Population [EMP]) in 2001. The population consistently increased in number through its first decade of existence (Fig. 1). Techniques using ultralight-led migration and direct autumn release of costume-reared birds were highly successful in producing birds with adequate survival, migration, natal fidelity, pair formation, territory establishment, and egg production to make establishment of a population possible (Urbanek et al. 2014). However, two problems became apparent: (1) extensive nest desertion related to attack of incubating birds by black flies (Simulium spp.) limited production of chicks (Urbanek 2010; Converse et al. 2013; WCEP 2014; R. P. Urbanek, unpublished data), and (2) survival to fledging of the few chicks that hatched was low. Unless addressed, either of these problems will result in failure of the reintroduction to establish a self-sustaining population. In response to the first problem, WCEP moved the reintroduction effort to eastern Wisconsin, where the black flies are believed to be less prevalent, beginning in 2011. The total population size of the EMP has since regressed to about 100 birds (Fig. 1). In regard to the second problem, the factors responsible for high mortality of chicks are currently unknown; however, because of habitat conditions on Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), numerous common potential predators, and lack of other known mortality factors, predation is highly suspected as the major cause.

At Necedah, potential predators are numerous and include raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), mink (Mustela vison), raven (Corvus corax), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), gray wolf (Canis lupus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), fisher (Martes pennanti), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and several additional mammalian and avian species. Because crane chicks must survive 10-12 weeks before they are capable of flight, high mortality due to predators during this period is a common limiting factor for crane populations in general, not just whooping cranes in central Wisconsin. However, at Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada, which supports the only remaining natural population of whooping cranes, chick survival is much higher than in most other North American crane populations (Gerber et al. 2014, Urbanek and Lewis 2015). Predator numbers there are low, and some species common elsewhere, e.g., raccoons (Nowak 1999), do not occur at all.

Necedah NWR has potential to improve chick-rearing habitat through manipulation of water levels and control of undesirable vegetation, the latter by burning and physical removal such as hydro-axing. These management actions could decrease predator cover and increase quality of crane chick-rearing habitat. The first breeding pair to successfully fledge a chick on Necedah NWR did so with no previous chick-rearing experience. That pair, which was closely monitored

in 2006, nested in sedge (Carex spp.) marsh on the east side of the east Pool 1 (East Rynearson Pool) dike and reared the chicks in their territory along the eastern edge of the pool, later expanding range to the southern end of the pool. The pool was maintained at less than full pool conditions during the chick-rearing period with gradual recession during the summer. Habitat used by the family consisted of shallow open marsh, near open water or on islands, and with little or no woody vegetation. In 2015, water levels were managed to emulate these conditions in order to reduce predator cover at the pool edges and increase feeding efficiency by increasing availability of food items.

This paper addresses the problem of chick mortality by beginning a stepwise process of solutions. Initial steps include (1) identification of the most likely predator species causing the mortality, and (2) testing habitat management to decrease susceptibility of whooping crane chicks to predation.

METHODS

Identification of Whooping Crane Chick Predators

I operated four PC900 HyperFire Professional camera traps (Reconyx, Inc., 3828 Creekside Lane, Suite 2, Holmen, WI 54636) at 14 locations on Necedah NWR during 11 May-14 August 2015. Eleven trap sites were in chick-rearing habitat in active whooping crane territories, most of which contained chicks in 2015. Three additional trap sites included a whooping crane nest in which the female died, apparently killed by a predator, while incubating, a sandhill crane nest in which a newly hatched chick was killed, and an upland site in which a sandhill crane chick was killed (Fig. 2). Camera settings were: motion sensor ON, sensitivity HIGH, pics per trigger 3, picture interval 1 SEC, quiet period NO, time lapse OFF, night mode illumination ON. I baited each trap site with two commercially available, frozen, 1-day-old chicken chicks (Mike Dupuy Hawk Food, 4552 Troxelville Road, Middleburg, PA 17842), each attached to a willow stake by tape around the neck (Fig. 3).

Habitat Management to Reduce Whooping Crane Chick Mortality

I gradually lowered water levels on Pool 1 (Fig. 2) from mid-June through August, during the chick-rearing period of two families on Pool 1 (East Rynearson Pool) to simulate pool conditions during successful fledging which had occurred on that pool during 2006.

RESULTS

Chick Mortality

A complete record of all chick production in the EMP appears in Appendix B. From 2006 to 2014 in central Wisconsin, only 7 chicks from 7 broods fledged from 40 confirmed chicks hatching from 30 broods. Of broods with 2 chicks, 1 chick usually disappeared within 2 weeks of hatching (Fig. 4). Most mortality occurred before 6 weeks of age (Fig. 4). Only 4 pairs (or

territories) successfully fledged chicks during that period. One of these pairs fledged 3 chicks from 4 broods on a cranberry reservoir in Wood County.

The pattern of chick mortality in 2015 was similar to the historic pattern with some exceptions: Brood survival (i.e., survival of the longest surviving chick) was greater, i.e., evenly extended across the first 6 weeks rather than steadily declining during that period, and no chick mortality occurred after 6 weeks in 2015 (Fig. 4). Of 3 fledged chicks, 2 were in territories in which chicks had fledged in earlier years. In the latter, one successful pair had also fledged chicks in 2 previous years; the other pair had not previously fledged a chick.

Potential Predators of Whooping Crane Chicks

At the 14 trap sites, 371 trap-nights resulted in 22,552 photos. The number of photos per site varied from 0 to thousands, the latter usually due to blowing vegetation rather than animal activity. Photography recorded 98 animal events (i.e., an individual occurrence containing 1 or more animals) of 105 total animals of 6 potential predator species (Table 1). Additionally, 27 species or taxa which visited the trap sites but were not crane chick predators were recorded (Appendix B). Raccoons accounted for 78% of total animals recorded. Canids, apparently all wolves, accounted for 8.6% of animals photographed. Some representative photos appear in Appendix C.

From among species photographed, the three most likely to be potential predators of crane chicks each demonstrated a significant proportion of total activity during daytime: raccoon (28%), wolf (67%), and mink (75%). Striped skunk, weasel, and badger were all upland species and only detected at night (Table 2).

Habitat Management to Promote Chick Survival

In 2006 the resident pair (both 4-year-olds) on eastern Pool 1 hatched two chicks from a renest on 22 June. During that year, water levels were relatively low early (this was before replacement of the dam that made current management at higher water levels possible) and gradually receded about 1.5 feet, partially due to drought, during summer (Fig. 5). One chick fledged; the other was nearly fledged when the parents and other chick flew from the pool, leaving the flightless chick alone. The latter chick survived less than 1 day before apparently being killed by a predator.

Pool 1 (Fig. 1) was the focal point for the reintroduction and currently contains all or parts of four whooping crane breeding territories. In 2015 each of the four resident pairs nested, but one nest was destroyed by a coyote and another lost their only chick at 3 weeks of age on approximately 31 May. The other two nests (one a first nest of the season, the other a renest after egg removal for a “forced renesting” experiment) hatched on 16 May and 28 May, respectively. I began lowering water levels to drop the level 1.63 feet (0.21 feet/week) between 17 June and 10 August to approximate the water level on the latter date during 2006 (Fig 5). As in 2006, each of the two families on this intensively managed pool fledged a chick in 2015 (Fig. 6). Elsewhere, in

the population only one chick fledged from 14 other broods. The successful fledging was in the center of Sprague Pool, the territory on Necedah NWR with the highest wetland/upland ratio and no significant adjoining upland forest (Fig. 6).

DISCUSSION

There are sources of chick mortality other than predation which deserve further study. For example, two instances of death from intestinal parasites, one involving a chick, have been documented (Urbanek et al. 2014). Verification of predation as the major cause of mortality has yet to be confirmed. A separate, concurrent study of sandhill crane chick mortality by other refuge staff planned to further address this issue but was compromised by lack of retention of transmitters, which had been attached to the back with adhesive. That study is planned to resume in 2016 on sandhill and whooping cranes with implanted transmitters. However, despite the low, but growing, evidence to date, environmental conditions continue to support predation being the major contributing factor to whooping crane chick loss in central Wisconsin, and that is the factor to which priority research efforts should be directed.

The current study used dead bait. Dead bait limited attraction to camera traps by species which search by movement for live prey and probably biased results, e.g., in favor of raccoons. Use of live chicken chicks in cages at camera trap sites was originally intended, but that plan would have required Animal Care and Use Committee Approval, which could not have been obtained in time to implement the study or possibly would not have been granted at all. In addition, concerns about spread of avian influenza, of which one case had already been discovered in a poultry operation in Juneau County, Wisconsin, made approval for use of live bait unrealistic.

Dead bait was attractive to raccoons, which are omnivorous scavengers as well as predators. Raccoons are ubiquitous on the refuge and accounted for 78% of animals recorded. Dominant cover by mature Hill’s oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) on much of the refuge provides unlimited denning trees as well as food for raccoons. In addition, juxtaposition of this habitat type among the equally valuable wetland habitat preferred by this species results in ideal conditions which contribute to abundance of this species. These same wetlands comprise the whooping crane breeding territories.

Canids, while in much lower numbers, are wide-ranging and also occur in all whooping crane territories. Camera surveillance documented two nests on the southern half of the refuge destroyed by coyotes in 2015. All canids documented in the current study were in the northern half of the refuge and all were apparently gray wolves, although identification of pups from photos is not always conclusive. There may have been some trap bias as well, because the southern half of the refuge was camera-trapped earlier than the northern half, increasing detection of pups in the latter. The populations of these canids are in flux on the refuge. In the early 2000s, a wolf pack inhabited the southern portion of the refuge and members were commonly observed. That pack was later displaced, and in recent years another pack has been

commonly observed on the northern part of the refuge. Coyotes and wolves are minimally compatible, with coyotes tending to avoid and be displaced by the dominant wolves.

Among other mammalian carnivores, no bobcat, fisher, or otter (Lontra canadensis) were detected by camera traps. Mink, although not likely as common as in other areas of Wisconsin which support greater muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) populations, are common on the refuge. Their abundance may have been underestimated by trapping with dead bait. Because whooping cranes brood chicks to about 6 weeks of age in wetland areas more protected by greater water depth and less dense vegetation than some areas used while moving about in daily foraging, chicks may be more susceptible to predation during daytime. Skunks and badgers are common on the refuge, but rarely active during daytime; neither are expected to be significant predators of crane chicks.

Necedah NWR has a furbearer management plan which includes a trapping program (Urbanek 2015). Applicants from the general public are assigned individual units. The program is recreational, and the trappers vary greatly in proficiency and effort expended. In addition, trapping during state seasons basically removes surplus animals and is not an effective means of population control. Wolf trapping has never been permitted on the refuge. Coyote trapping has also not been permitted to ensure that wolves would not be accidentally trapped. Wolves were previously federally endangered but then delisted after large increases in the population since 1990. The wolf was delisted in January 2012 and hunting outside the refuge was permitted. Because the population in Wisconsin is small (<1,000 animals), hunting and trapping significantly affect population size. During the 3 seasons following delisting, all zone quotas were filled, and 528 wolves were legally harvested in the state. Wolves were relisted in December 2014. Their controversial status will likely continue to change.

Predator reduction has historically been a management practice used to increase waterfowl production on National Wildlife Refuges, although data to evaluate effectiveness on Necedah NWR are unavailable. Analysis of costs and benefits are not yet possible. Additional study of relationships among predator species and whooping cranes will be necessary to provide information needed for successful establishment and management of the whooping crane population.

Populations of mammalian carnivores generally have high mortality compensated by high reproduction. Numbers are lowest at the end of winter and highest after recruitment of young-of-the-year into the population by the end of summer. Once cranes have fledged, their susceptibility to predation, especially from predators on the ground, is greatly reduced. Like other avian prey species, cranes that nest as early as local climate conditions allow will fledge young early and experience less hunting pressure from predators than if they nested later. Thus earlier nesting should result in greater chick survival. However, in central Wisconsin this general rule is confounded by the black fly-induced nest desertion problem noted earlier. In addition, the effect of black flies on hatched chicks or their parents’ ability to care for them is currently unknown but

may be detrimental to survival. The current year was unusual in that of the 9 years for which data are available (2007-15), 2015 was the only year in which no significant black fly outbreak occurred (Urbanek et al. 2010; R. P. Urbanek, unpublished data). Abnormally low numbers of black flies likely contributed to chick survival rather than exacerbating the chick mortality problem as it might do in more typical years.

Many habitat management practices routinely used on Necedah NWR can be further applied to improving chick-rearing habitat on whooping crane territories. These include water control and open landscape creation and maintenance. Generally, the more shallow water or marsh vegetation, the less woody vegetation, and the less upland adjacent to wetlands the better. In this study both crane families each fledged a chick on a pool where water level was specifically managed to improve conditions for chick-rearing. This process could be repeated on other pools. However, this technique would be more likely to be successful on larger pools and pools without thick or woody vegetation, especially near the edge. Woody vegetation removal in edges of wetlands or adjacent uplands could be an important tool to facilitate chick survival.

RECOMMENDATIONS Study to determine exact causes and circumstances of chick mortalities of both sandhill and whooping cranes needs to be continued. Care must be taken that methods do not confound results.

Studies of refuge predators and means to control their numbers and movements near whooping crane territories should be initiated. Densities, population structure, annual cycles, and specific habitat use need to be determined.

Development and implementation of pool and landscape habitat management actions which promote chick survival need to continue. These actions include water level manipulation and reduction of predator cover in territories where chicks are being reared.

Acknowledgments

I thank David MacFarland (Wisconsin DNR), Jayne Belsky, Adrian Wydeven, and Dick Thiel for assistance in photo interpretation and identifications.

LITERATURE CITED

Converse, S. J., J. A. Royle, P. H. Adler, R. P. Urbanek, and J. A. Barzen. 2013. A hierarchical nest survival model integrating incomplete temporally varying covariates. Ecology and Evolution 3:4439-4447.

Gerber, B. D., J. F. Dwyer, S. A. Nesbitt, R. C. Drewien, C. D. Littlefield, T. C. Tacha, and P. A. Vohs. 2014. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). Issue No. 31 in A. Poole, editor. The Birds of North America Online, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/031> Accessed 15 Sep 2015.

Nowak, R. M. 1999. Walker’s mammals of the world, 6th edition. Vol. 1. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Urbanek, R . P. 2015. Necedah National Wildlife Refuge furbearer management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Necedah, Wisconsin, USA.

Urbanek, R. P., and J. C. Lewis. 2015. Whooping crane (Grus americana). Issue No. 153 in A. Poole, editor. The Birds of North America Online, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/153> Accessed 15 Sep 2015.

Urbanek, R. P., S. E. Zimorski, A. M. Fasoli, and E. K. Szyszkoski. 2010. Nest desertion in a reintroduced population of migratory whooping cranes. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 11:133-141.

Urbanek, R. P., S. E. Zimorski, E. K. Szyszkoski, and M. M. Wellington. 2014. Ten-year status of the eastern migratory whooping crane reintroduction. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 12:33-42.

[WCEP] Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. 2014. Whooping crane nest productivity studies: black fly suppression study – Bti treatments. Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. <http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/technicaldatabase/2012BtiStudy.html> Accessed 15 Sep 2015.

Table 1. Number of animal events (total number of animals in events in parentheses) detecting indicated potential crane chick predatorsa by camera traps on Necedah NWR, May-August 2015.

a Scientific names: raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray wolf (Canis lupus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mink (Mustela vison), short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea), badger (Taxidea taxus).

b All positively identified canids were gray wolves; however, photography of some pups may have been insufficient to distinguish wolves from coyotes (Canis latrans).

Table 2. Circadian activity (number of animal events, number of animals in parentheses) of potential predators of crane chicks, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, May-August 2015.

Species Day Night (PM) Night (AM) Total Raccoon 21(23) 26 30(33) 77(82) Gray wolfa 4(6) 2 1 7(9) Striped skunk 0 4 3 7 Mink 3 0 1 4 Short-tailed weasel 0 0 2 2 Badger 0 1 0 1

a All positively identified canids were gray wolves; however, photography may have been insufficient to distinguish some pups from coyotes (Canis latrans).

Point name Start date End date

No. trap-

nights No.

photos Raccoon Gray wolfb

Striped skunk Mink

Short-tailed

weasel Badger TOTAL Becker Pool 15 May 2 Jun 19 381 13 13 Bee Cut 12 Jun 19 Jun 8 1 0 Bow Shoot field 2 Jun 14 Jul 43 7,594 0 Camp Road Pool 14 Jul 14 Aug 32 207 2 2 4 Canfield Pool 22 May 14 Jul 54 285 12 12 Carter-Woggon Pool 19 Jun 14 Jul 26 1,498 11 1 4 1 17 E Turkey Track 14 Jul 14 Aug 32 69 6 4(6) 1 11(13) Pharm Pool WC nest 11 May 15 May 5 0 0 Pool 29 S dike trail 14 Jul 14 Aug 32 9,559 12(15) 2 14(17) Rice Pool 19 Jun 14 Jul 26 1,572 10(12) 10(12) Pool 29 SC nest 2 Jun 9 Jun 8 219 0 Site 2 15 May 19 Jun 36 318 10 10 Site 4 16 May 2 Jun 18 84 1 1 West Goose trail 14 Jul 14 Aug 32 765 1 5 6 Total 371 22,552 77(82) 7(9) 7(7) 4(4) 2(2) 1(1) 98(105)

Figure 1. Growth and regress of the eastern migratory whooping crane population (EMP) reintroduced in Wisconsin, 2001-14. Origin of birds: PR = captive parent-reared, NAT = wild-hatched--parent-reared, DAR = costumed-reared--direct autumn release, UL = costume-reared--ultralight-led first migration.

Figure 2. Locations of camera traps for survey of potential whooping crane chick predators on Necedah NWR, May-August 2015.

Figure 3. Baiting camera trap site with dead day-old chicken chicks, Necedah NWR, May-August 2015.

Figure 4. Whooping crane chick mortality and survival, central Wisconsin, 2006-2015.

Figure 5. Water levels (feet above sea level) at dam, Pool 1, 15 May-31 August, 2006 and 2015. Hatch dates of chicks which later fledged are indicated.

Figure 6. Top: Whooping crane family with fledged chick on mid-Sprague Pool, Necedah NWR, 1 September 2015. Bottom: One of two families with fledged chicks on Pool 1, managed to reduce predator cover and increase availability of food items at pool edge, 3 September 2015.

APPENDIX A: Complete reproductive summary of the eastern migratory whooping crane population, 2005-15. All locations except Grand River Marsh are within the central Wisconsin reintroduction area. Entries are observed number of chicks hatched by whooping crane pairs that produced eggs (first entry = first nest of season; second entry = second nest; third entry = third nest). N, S = northern or southern Necedah NWR, Juneau County. All chicks that fledged are identified in footnotes.

a One chick (W1-06) fledged. b Chick hatched from captive-produced egg substituted for infertile eggs. c Chick hatched from captive-produced egg substituted for infertile eggs. Chick (W3-10) fledged. d One chick (W1-10) fledged. e One chick (W1-12) fledged. f One chick (W8-12) fledged. g One chick (W3-13) fledged. h One chick (W3-14) fledged. i One chick (W3-15) fledged. j One chick (W10-15) fledged. k One chick (W18-15) fledged. R Eggs intentionally removed in “forced renesting” experiment.

Pair General location

Year Male Female 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1-01 2-02 Necedah NWR-S 0 0

11-02 17-02 Necedah NWR-S 0 0,2a 0 0 0,1 17-03 3-02 Necedah NWR-N 0 2-03 9-02 Meadow Valley-Monroe 0

13-02 18-02 Necedah NWR-S 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 1 0 0 0 16-04 9-02 Meadow Valley-Monroe 0 0 17-03 3-03 Necedah NWR-N 0,0 0 0,0 0,0,2 1 12-02 19-04 Elm Lake-Wood 0 0,1b 0,1c 0 1e 0 1h 3-04 9-03 Necedah NWR-S 0 0,0 0,2d 0,0 0 0,1g 0R,0 0R,2k

11-03 12-03 Necedah NWR-N 0 0 1 0 0 18-03 13-03 Necedah NWR-S 0 0,0 0 1-04 8-05 Necedah NWR-N 0 0 0 0 0R,0 0R,1 8-04 19-05 Necedah NWR-N 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 5-05 15-04 Necedah NWR-N 0 0 0 0 0 5-01 1-05 Necedah NWR-N 0

10-03 W1-06 Necedah NWR-S 0 0 1 0 0 2-04 46-07 Necedah NWR-S 0 1 1

12-04 27-05 Juneau County Forest 1 11-02 30-08 Necedah NWR-S 0 16-02 16-07 Necedah NWR-N 0 0,1 0 0 0R,1 7-03 26-07 Necedah NWR-S 0 9-05 13-03 Necedah NWR-S 1 0,1f 0 2 1

12-05 22-07 Necedah NWR-N 0,0 0,0 0 24-05 42-07 Quincy Bluff-Adams 0 31-08 27-05 Juneau County Forest 0 3-07 38-08 Necedah NWR-N 0 0,0 7-07 39-07 Meadow Valley-Juneau 0 0 0 0R 0R,1

33-07 5-09 Leola-Adams 0 0,0 0 24-09 42-09 Leola-Adams 2 0,0 2 0 14-08 24-08 Necedah NWR-S 1 0 2 0R,2 18-03 36-09 Necedah NWR-S 0,0 0 0,0 1 16-04 4-09 Meadow Valley-Monroe 1 0 0 10-09 17-07 Necedah NWR-N 0 0 2i 11-09 15-09 Necedah NWR-S 0 0 2 1 28-08 5-10 Mead-Marathon 0 2 1 2 18-09 25-09 Necedah NWR-S 0 2-04 8-09 Necedah NWR-S 0 0

41-09 32-09 Necedah NWR-N 0 11-02 26-07 Necedah NWR-S 0 2 0,0 6-09 35-09 Cutler-Juneau 0

27-06 26-09 Necedah NWR-S 0 0 0R,1 17-03 7-09 Necedah NWR-N 0 5-05 32-09 Necedah NWR-N 0 0R,1 4-08 25-09 Necedah NWR-S 0R 1-10 W1-06 Necedah NWR-S 1 0,0 5-11 12-11 Cutler-Juneau 0 0

10-11 7-11 Grand River Marsh-Marquette 0 12-05 12-03 Necedah NWR-N 0 10-03 34-09 Necedah NWR-S 0 4-08 34-09 Necedah NWR-S 0

26-10 7-09 Necedah NWR-N 0 12-02 4-11 Elm Lake-Wood 0 41-09 10-10 Necedah NWR-N 0 29-09 12-03 Necedah NWR-N 0R,2 2-04 25-09 Necedah NWR-S 2j

29-08 W3-10 Necedah NWR-N 2 3-11 7-11 Colburn-Adams 2

19-11 17-11 Leola-Adams 0 Total nests 2,0 5,1 4,1 11,0 12,5 12,4,1 20,2 22,7 21,2 25,3 27,10

Total chicks 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 2,3,2 4,0 7,2 2,1 13,0 13,11

Appendix B. Non-predatory species (number of animal events, total number of animals in events in parentheses) detected by camera traps, Necedah NWR, May-August 2015.

Species

Scientific name

Sitea Bec Bee Bow Can CWP CRP ETT Pha D29 Ric S29 St2 St4 WGt Total

Mammals Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 1 1 Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus 1 10 11 Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 1 1 Vole (unidentified) Cricetidae (Arvicolinae) 1 1 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 1 1 Mouse (unidentified) Peromyscus & Zapus spp. 2 5 7 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 1 1 1 3 White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 1 3 3 1 1 9

Birds Wood duckb Aix sponsa 2 2 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2(3) 1 3(4) Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus 1 1 Great blue heron Ardea herodias 4 4 Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 1 6 3 1 11 Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 1 1 American woodcock Scolopax minor 1 1 Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 1 1 Veery Catharus fuscescens 1 1 American robin Turdus migratorius 4 4 Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 2 2 Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 1 1 Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 1 2 Sparrow (unidentified) Emberizidae 2 2 Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 2 1 2 1 11 17 Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 1 1 2

Amphibians Green frog Rana clamitans 1 1

Insects Red-spotted purple Limenitis arthemis 1 1 2 Viceroy Limenitis archippus 1 1

Nonec 1 6d 1 1 1 1 11

a Sites: Bec = Becker Pool, Bee = Bee Cut, Can = Canfield Pool, CWP = Carter-Woggon Pool, CRP = Camp Road Pool, ETT = E Turkey Track, Pha = Pharm Pool WC nest, D29 = Pool 29 S dike trail, Ric = Rice Pool, S29 = Pool 29 SC nest, St2 = Site 2, St4 = Site 4, WGt = West Goose trail.

b Does not include young in brood.

c No species of any type (predatory or non-predatory) detected during weekly check.

d Includes 4 records in which bait disappeared but photography did not reveal cause.

Appendix C. Most common predators captured by camera traps, Necedah NWR, May-August 2015. Plates in order: (1) raccoon, raccoon family young-of-year, (2) yearling gray wolf, raccoon, (3) yearling wolf, wolf pups, (4) mink, striped skunk.