管道垂钓者对密苏里河栖息地创造的人口反应Respuestas demográficas del frailecillo silbador a la creación de hábitat en el Río Missouri对密苏里河栖息地创造的人口反应

IF 4.3 1区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY Wildlife Monographs Pub Date : 2015-09-17 DOI:10.1002/wmon.1016
Daniel H. Catlin, James D. Fraser, Joy H. Felio
{"title":"管道垂钓者对密苏里河栖息地创造的人口反应Respuestas demográficas del frailecillo silbador a la creación de hábitat en el Río Missouri对密苏里河栖息地创造的人口反应","authors":"Daniel H. Catlin,&nbsp;James D. Fraser,&nbsp;Joy H. Felio","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>The piping plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>) was listed under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) because of habitat loss and excessive predation. The Missouri River provides important habitat for the Great Plains population of the species, some of which nest and forage on river sandbars deposited naturally during high river flows. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates a series of dams on the river that affect water level and the size, number, distribution, and vegetative cover of these sandbars. As a federal agency, USACE is required by the ESA to have a program to conserve the piping plover, and is prohibited from engaging in activities that jeopardize the plover's continued existence. Pursuant to these obligations, the USACE implemented a habitat creation program on the Gavins Point Reach (GVP) and Lewis and Clark Lake (LCL) on the Missouri River from 2004 to 2011. This habitat creation provided an opportunity to study the piping plover's demographic response to several habitat types, and in particular to habitat creation. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of management on plovers using the Missouri River. We studied the changes in engineered and natural habitats, and compared the effects of newly engineered habitat versus naturally created habitat on plover demography during 2005–2011. To this end, we estimated changes in nesting habitat (open or sparsely vegetated dry sand) and examined the factors affecting nest success, chick survival from hatching to fledging, survival, and movement (between and among engineered and natural sandbars) of hatch-year and adult birds, fidelity of plovers to the study area, and immigration of plovers into engineered habitat. We used demographic estimates to determine overall and habitat-specific reproductive output and overall population growth rate. Under the assumption that plovers are habitat limited on the Missouri River, we predicted that they would respond positively to the creation of engineered habitat, that their demographic rates would be higher at those sites than on older, natural sandbars, and that over time, the rates would resemble those on older, natural habitats. Engineered sandbars had proportionally more plover nesting habitat than natural sandbars, but the proportion of nesting habitat decreased through vegetation encroachment and erosion as the sandbars aged. Adult and hatch-year plovers immigrated to engineered sandbars, but immigration slowed as nesting density increased. Nesting density on engineered sandbars increased soon after sandbar construction, peaked 2–3 years later, and then declined to levels similar to those on older, natural sandbars. Birds that nested on engineered sandbars had higher nest success, and those nesting on LCL had higher chick survival than those that nested on GVP sandbars. Adult survival did not differ between engineered or natural habitat, but apparent survival was lower for birds that were not known to nest, indicating higher emigration or mortality rates for non-nesters. Adult and hatch-year plovers had high fidelity to the study area (&gt;60% for hatch-year birds, &gt;90% for adults), and hatch-year fidelity was highest (&gt;80%) when habitat availability increased. We estimated that given observed survival rates, the reproductive output needed for a stationary population was 1.25 chicks fledged per pair, a rate which was equaled or exceeded in 3 of 4 years on LCL, in 2 of 5 years on engineered sandbars on GVP, and in 1 of 5 years on natural sandbars on GVP. Our results support the hypothesis that piping plovers were habitat-limited before and during the study. Although nest exclosure and predator control sometimes can improve reproductive output, we predict that these interventions will do little to increase population size unless there is additional habitat to capture enhanced productivity. Based on high fidelity rates and short distances between subsequent nesting attempts (median = 12 km for adults), we suggest that habitat construction be widely distributed within approximately 12 km of a source population to maximize the efficiency of the population-building process. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1016","citationCount":"48","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Demographic responses of piping plovers to habitat creation on the Missouri river\\n Respuestas Demográficas del Frailecillo Silbador a la Creación de Hábitat en el Río Missouri\\n Réactions Démographiques des Pluvieurs Siffleurs à la Création d'Habitat sur la Rivière Missouri\",\"authors\":\"Daniel H. Catlin,&nbsp;James D. Fraser,&nbsp;Joy H. Felio\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wmon.1016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <p>The piping plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>) was listed under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) because of habitat loss and excessive predation. The Missouri River provides important habitat for the Great Plains population of the species, some of which nest and forage on river sandbars deposited naturally during high river flows. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates a series of dams on the river that affect water level and the size, number, distribution, and vegetative cover of these sandbars. As a federal agency, USACE is required by the ESA to have a program to conserve the piping plover, and is prohibited from engaging in activities that jeopardize the plover's continued existence. Pursuant to these obligations, the USACE implemented a habitat creation program on the Gavins Point Reach (GVP) and Lewis and Clark Lake (LCL) on the Missouri River from 2004 to 2011. This habitat creation provided an opportunity to study the piping plover's demographic response to several habitat types, and in particular to habitat creation. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of management on plovers using the Missouri River. We studied the changes in engineered and natural habitats, and compared the effects of newly engineered habitat versus naturally created habitat on plover demography during 2005–2011. To this end, we estimated changes in nesting habitat (open or sparsely vegetated dry sand) and examined the factors affecting nest success, chick survival from hatching to fledging, survival, and movement (between and among engineered and natural sandbars) of hatch-year and adult birds, fidelity of plovers to the study area, and immigration of plovers into engineered habitat. We used demographic estimates to determine overall and habitat-specific reproductive output and overall population growth rate. Under the assumption that plovers are habitat limited on the Missouri River, we predicted that they would respond positively to the creation of engineered habitat, that their demographic rates would be higher at those sites than on older, natural sandbars, and that over time, the rates would resemble those on older, natural habitats. Engineered sandbars had proportionally more plover nesting habitat than natural sandbars, but the proportion of nesting habitat decreased through vegetation encroachment and erosion as the sandbars aged. Adult and hatch-year plovers immigrated to engineered sandbars, but immigration slowed as nesting density increased. Nesting density on engineered sandbars increased soon after sandbar construction, peaked 2–3 years later, and then declined to levels similar to those on older, natural sandbars. Birds that nested on engineered sandbars had higher nest success, and those nesting on LCL had higher chick survival than those that nested on GVP sandbars. Adult survival did not differ between engineered or natural habitat, but apparent survival was lower for birds that were not known to nest, indicating higher emigration or mortality rates for non-nesters. Adult and hatch-year plovers had high fidelity to the study area (&gt;60% for hatch-year birds, &gt;90% for adults), and hatch-year fidelity was highest (&gt;80%) when habitat availability increased. We estimated that given observed survival rates, the reproductive output needed for a stationary population was 1.25 chicks fledged per pair, a rate which was equaled or exceeded in 3 of 4 years on LCL, in 2 of 5 years on engineered sandbars on GVP, and in 1 of 5 years on natural sandbars on GVP. Our results support the hypothesis that piping plovers were habitat-limited before and during the study. Although nest exclosure and predator control sometimes can improve reproductive output, we predict that these interventions will do little to increase population size unless there is additional habitat to capture enhanced productivity. Based on high fidelity rates and short distances between subsequent nesting attempts (median = 12 km for adults), we suggest that habitat construction be widely distributed within approximately 12 km of a source population to maximize the efficiency of the population-building process. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Monographs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1016\",\"citationCount\":\"48\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1016\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

摘要

管鸻(Charadrius melodus)因栖息地丧失和过度捕食而被列入美国濒危物种法案(ESA)。密苏里河为该物种的大平原种群提供了重要的栖息地,其中一些在河流高流量时自然沉积的河沙洲上筑巢和觅食。美国陆军工程兵团(USACE)在河上修建了一系列水坝,这些水坝影响着水位以及这些沙洲的大小、数量、分布和植被覆盖。作为一个联邦机构,USACE被ESA要求有一个保护管鸻的计划,并且被禁止从事危及管鸻继续存在的活动。根据这些义务,USACE于2004年至2011年在密苏里河上的加文斯点河段(GVP)和刘易斯和克拉克湖(LCL)实施了一项栖息地创建计划。这种栖息地的创造提供了一个机会来研究管鸻对几种栖息地类型的人口反应,特别是对栖息地的创造。本研究的目的是评估管理对使用密苏里河的鸻的影响。研究了2005-2011年人工生境与自然生境的变化,比较了人工生境与自然生境对鸻种群数量的影响。为此,我们估计了筑巢栖息地(开放或稀疏植被的干沙)的变化,并研究了影响筑巢成功的因素,雏鸟从孵化到羽化的存活率,孵化年和成年鸟的生存和运动(在工程沙洲和自然沙洲之间和之间),对研究区域的鸻的保真度,以及鸻向工程生境的迁移。我们使用人口统计估计来确定总体和特定栖息地的生殖产出和总体人口增长率。假设鸻在密苏里河上的栖息地有限,我们预测它们会对工程栖息地的创造做出积极的反应,它们在这些地点的人口比例将高于旧的自然沙洲,随着时间的推移,这一比例将与旧的自然栖息地相似。工程沙洲的鸻筑巢生境比例高于天然沙洲,但随着沙洲的老化,由于植被的侵蚀,筑巢生境比例下降。成年和孵化年份的鸻迁移到工程沙洲,但随着筑巢密度的增加,迁移速度减慢。工程沙洲上的筑巢密度在沙洲建成后很快增加,在2-3年后达到峰值,然后下降到与旧的天然沙洲相似的水平。在工程沙洲上筑巢的鸟类筑巢成功率更高,在LCL上筑巢的雏鸟存活率高于在GVP沙洲上筑巢的雏鸟存活率。成虫存活率在工程栖息地和自然栖息地之间没有差异,但对于不筑巢的鸟类来说,明显的存活率较低,这表明非筑巢鸟类的迁徙或死亡率更高。成年和孵化年鸻对研究区域的保真度较高(孵化年鸻>60%,孵化年鸻>90%),当生境可用性增加时,孵化年保真度最高(>80%)。我们估计,根据观察到的存活率,一个固定种群所需的繁殖产量为每对1.25只小鸡,在LCL上的4年中有3年等于或超过这一比率,在GVP上的工程沙洲上5年中有2年等于或超过这一比率,在GVP上的自然沙洲上5年中有1年等于或超过这一比率。我们的研究结果支持了管鸻在研究之前和研究期间栖息地有限的假设。虽然巢围和捕食者控制有时可以提高繁殖产量,但我们预测,除非有额外的栖息地来捕获提高生产力,否则这些干预措施对增加种群规模几乎没有作用。基于高保真率和后续筑巢尝试之间的短距离(成鸟的中位数= 12公里),我们建议栖息地建设广泛分布在源种群约12公里的范围内,以最大限度地提高种群建设过程的效率。©2015野生动物协会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Demographic responses of piping plovers to habitat creation on the Missouri river Respuestas Demográficas del Frailecillo Silbador a la Creación de Hábitat en el Río Missouri Réactions Démographiques des Pluvieurs Siffleurs à la Création d'Habitat sur la Rivière Missouri

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) was listed under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) because of habitat loss and excessive predation. The Missouri River provides important habitat for the Great Plains population of the species, some of which nest and forage on river sandbars deposited naturally during high river flows. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates a series of dams on the river that affect water level and the size, number, distribution, and vegetative cover of these sandbars. As a federal agency, USACE is required by the ESA to have a program to conserve the piping plover, and is prohibited from engaging in activities that jeopardize the plover's continued existence. Pursuant to these obligations, the USACE implemented a habitat creation program on the Gavins Point Reach (GVP) and Lewis and Clark Lake (LCL) on the Missouri River from 2004 to 2011. This habitat creation provided an opportunity to study the piping plover's demographic response to several habitat types, and in particular to habitat creation. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of management on plovers using the Missouri River. We studied the changes in engineered and natural habitats, and compared the effects of newly engineered habitat versus naturally created habitat on plover demography during 2005–2011. To this end, we estimated changes in nesting habitat (open or sparsely vegetated dry sand) and examined the factors affecting nest success, chick survival from hatching to fledging, survival, and movement (between and among engineered and natural sandbars) of hatch-year and adult birds, fidelity of plovers to the study area, and immigration of plovers into engineered habitat. We used demographic estimates to determine overall and habitat-specific reproductive output and overall population growth rate. Under the assumption that plovers are habitat limited on the Missouri River, we predicted that they would respond positively to the creation of engineered habitat, that their demographic rates would be higher at those sites than on older, natural sandbars, and that over time, the rates would resemble those on older, natural habitats. Engineered sandbars had proportionally more plover nesting habitat than natural sandbars, but the proportion of nesting habitat decreased through vegetation encroachment and erosion as the sandbars aged. Adult and hatch-year plovers immigrated to engineered sandbars, but immigration slowed as nesting density increased. Nesting density on engineered sandbars increased soon after sandbar construction, peaked 2–3 years later, and then declined to levels similar to those on older, natural sandbars. Birds that nested on engineered sandbars had higher nest success, and those nesting on LCL had higher chick survival than those that nested on GVP sandbars. Adult survival did not differ between engineered or natural habitat, but apparent survival was lower for birds that were not known to nest, indicating higher emigration or mortality rates for non-nesters. Adult and hatch-year plovers had high fidelity to the study area (>60% for hatch-year birds, >90% for adults), and hatch-year fidelity was highest (>80%) when habitat availability increased. We estimated that given observed survival rates, the reproductive output needed for a stationary population was 1.25 chicks fledged per pair, a rate which was equaled or exceeded in 3 of 4 years on LCL, in 2 of 5 years on engineered sandbars on GVP, and in 1 of 5 years on natural sandbars on GVP. Our results support the hypothesis that piping plovers were habitat-limited before and during the study. Although nest exclosure and predator control sometimes can improve reproductive output, we predict that these interventions will do little to increase population size unless there is additional habitat to capture enhanced productivity. Based on high fidelity rates and short distances between subsequent nesting attempts (median = 12 km for adults), we suggest that habitat construction be widely distributed within approximately 12 km of a source population to maximize the efficiency of the population-building process. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Monographs
Wildlife Monographs 生物-动物学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wildlife Monographs supplements The Journal of Wildlife Management with focused investigations in the area of the management and conservation of wildlife. Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Agricultural & Environmental Science Database (ProQuest) Biological Science Database (ProQuest) CAB Abstracts® (CABI) Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database (ProQuest) Global Health (CABI) Grasslands & Forage Abstracts (CABI) Helminthological Abstracts (CABI) Natural Science Collection (ProQuest) Poultry Abstracts (CABI) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-543 Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) SciTech Premium Collection (ProQuest) Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts (CABI) Veterinary Bulletin (CABI)
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - Cover Associations between a feral equid and the Sonoran Desert ecosystem Asociaciones Entre un Equino Salvaje y el Ecosistema del Desierto Sonorense Issue Information - Cover Less is more: vegetation changes coincide with white-tailed deer suppression over thirty years Issue Information - Cover
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1