A History of Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary Carl Wilms………………………...………………………………….………

INDIANA AUDUBON QUARTERLY VOL. 96, NO. 3. AUGUST 2018 1

INDIANA AUDUBON SOCIETY, Inc.

Founded 1898 Incorporated 1939

OFFICERS President………………………………………………... Ryan Slack [email protected] Vice President……………………………………… John Velasquez [email protected] Past President………………………………….…………Jeff Canda [email protected] Secretary………………………………………...... Kim Ehn [email protected] Treasurer………………………………………….…..Tanner Troyer [email protected] Editor Cardinal (Director)……………………………...Mark Welter [email protected] Webmaster……………………………………………...Amy Wilms [email protected]

DIRECTORS

Term Expires 2018 Term Expires 2019 Term Expires 2020 Amy Kearns Kristin Stratton Matt Beatty Sarah McKillip Shari McCollough April Raver Allee Forsberg Sally Routh Annie Aguirre

FIELD NOTE/COUNT EDITORS/BIRD RECORDS CHAIR

Editor Quarterly…………………………………..Brad Bumgardner [email protected] Field Note Editor (Spring)……………………………… Bob Carper [email protected] Field Note Editor (Summer)……………………………...Ken Brock [email protected] Field Note Editor (Fall)…………………………………….Kim Ehn [email protected] Field Note Editor (Winter)……………………………...... Open May Bird Count and Final Edit Editor………….....Matt Kalwasinski [email protected] Summer Bird Count Editor…………………………….Amy Kearns [email protected] Winter Feeder Count Editor………………………….. John Castrale [email protected] Christmas Count Editors……………………………..… Jeff Canada [email protected]

Indiana Bird Records Committee………………………....Kirk Roth [email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Brad Bumgardner

TRUSTEES OF THE MARY GRAY/DEVELOPMENT ENDOWMENT FUNDS

Tanner Troyer Chad Williams Margaret Schwarz

MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

Sally Routh (Chairperson) Margaret Schwarz Mary Cox

PAST PRESIDENTS OF THE SOCIETY (LIVING)

Susanna Arvin Sallie Potter Thomas Potter John F. Branham Karen Henman Alan W. Bruner Thomas Brinduse Edward Hopkins Marge Riemenschneider Kathleen Hoover Paul Steffen Gerald Dryer Dr. Russell Mumford Rebecca Lewis Carl Wilms Jane Miller Amy Wilms Brad Bumgardner Jeff Canada 2

INDIANA AUDUBON QUARTERLY (Formerly the Indiana Audubon Society Yearbook) Published in February, May, August and November by The Indiana Audubon Society, Inc. Editor’s Address: 85 Old Hickory Lane, Valparaiso, IN 46385 Email: [email protected] Visit our website at www.indianaaudubon.org ______

Vol. 96, No. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS AUGUST 2018 ______

Letter from the Executive Director Brad Bumgardner.…………………….……………………………………...... 3

The Spectacular Snowy Owl Irruption of 2018-2018 Ken Brock...……………………… ……………….…………………..……….….……4

Spring 2018 Field Notes Bob Carper…………………………………………………………………………..….11

A History of Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary Carl Wilms………………………...………………………………….………...... 16

Master Plan for Mary Gray Nature Preserve Indiana Audubon Board of Directors. ………………………………………………....23

Threat of climate change on a songbird population through its impacts on breeding….25 Thomas W. Bonnot , W. Andrew Cox, Frank R. Thompson, and Joshua J. Millspaugh

Cover photo: Putnam County Brown Pelican on Heritage Lake. Photo taken by Ryan Sanderson on 23 April 2018.

Back cover photo: A hybrid Cinnamon Teal/Blue-winged Teal takes off from Celery Bog, Tippecanoe Co., on 28 March 2018. Photo by Tyler Stewart.

CLASSES OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE INDIANA AUDUBON SOCIETY Life Membership $675.000 Individual $300.00 Cardinal Club $100.000 Library/Organization (subcription only) $100.00 Contributing $50.000 Student/IYBC (12 and older) $20.00 Family $35.000 Fledgling Student/IYBC (under 12) $5.00

Membership fees may be sent to: Sally Routh, 12284 Daugherty Dr., Zionsville IN 46077 3

Letter from the Executive Director

Brad Bumgardner, Valparaiso, IN [email protected]

Indiana Audubon is growing! Our membership is up. Our conservation funding is up. Our educational opportunities are up. Our event attendance is up. Every one of these activities is about you and what you’ve done to help IAS grow. I’d invite you to think about what you’ve done for birds in the last year.

Do you operate bird feeders? Do you keep them up late into the fall to help straggling hummers or to glimpse a rare western species? Maybe you’ve led a birding trip or taken out birders to a new site to explore the wonderful world of birds. Perhaps you’ve visited Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary and helped in either a morning of bird banding or assisted Dawn for a work day on the invasive species. All these events, while small have a huge impact on the overall world of birds in which we live.

As we continue through 2018, Indiana Audubon is ever expanding its reach on the impact we can have towards birds, not only in your backyard, but worldwide. The recent growth and popularity of the Indiana Dunes Birding Festival has allowed for an outpouring of support for the revived Mumford & Keller Grants and Scholarship Program. This year, over $4,000 has been donated to the fund and will provide applicants the chance to fund their bird conservation or research initiative here in Indiana or worldwide. It will also provide a means to stimulate new birders into our great hobby, whether it be in-school programs, scout activities, or a trip for a young birder.

The 2018 fall funding deadline is fast approaching if you’d like to be considered for funding. You can visit the IAS website and find the application online in the awards and grants section. Meeting the grant reporting requirements lets you share what you’ve learned and done right here via the Indiana Audubon Quarterly.

Another way for members to expand their reach is through the Bird Town Indiana initiative. Bird Town Indiana helps recognize towns and communities that care about birds. Modeled after the “Tree City USA” program and the highly successful Bird City Wisconsin, Indiana Audubon Society began Bird Town Indiana in 2013, and now has a dozen recognized towns, and more in the pipeline.

If a community meets at least seven criteria, it becomes an official Bird Town. Indiana Bird Towns are those that both the public officials and citizens demonstrate an active and ongoing commitment to the protection and conservation of bird populations and their habitats.

Whatever your birding passion, I hope you can find a way to express that desire to save the birds and don’t hesitate to let Indiana Audubon help you along the way!

The Spectacular Snowy Owl Irruption of 2017-18

Kenneth J. Brock, Chesterton, IN [email protected]

The Snowy Owl is believed to be one of the oldest bird species recognized in prehistoric cave art (Holt, et al., 2015), indicating that humans have been attracted to this magnificent bird for millennia. Indeed, if there is a single favorite bird of almost everyone, even non-birders, it is very likely this beautiful owl. A resident of the Arctic tundra, it is a rare but regular winter visitor to Indiana that was recently brought to our attention by an enormous flight that occurred during the 2017-18 winter.

In most years a few Snowy Owls (mainly young birds) migrate southward in winter, resulting in one to seven reports in Indiana. On these years the adults tend to remain in the Arctic. Periodically however, large- scale southward movements occur, and everyone heads south. These “bail out” events are called irruptions.

In the past it was believed that irruptions occurred when the lemming population, a primary food source, declined. Lemming numbers tend to drop roughly every 3-5 years. However, recent studies have revealed that the correlation between owl This Snowy Owl, likely a first-year female, was found perched irruptions and declines in the lemming on the beach at Michigan City Harbor on 17 December 2017. population is not good (Holt, et al., Many of those subsequently observed, especially early in the 2015). season, had unusually dark markings like this individual. Photo by the author.

Figure 1 reveals that Indiana’s seasonal Snowy Owl counts do not fit neatly into a three to five year cycle. More importantly, lemming research on the north slope of Alaska suggests that all lemming populations do not rise and fall simultaneously (Pitelka and Batzli, 1993).

Accordingly, a satisfactory explanation for cause of Snowy Owl irruptions remains unclear. It is clear however, that both food and weather play a role.

Historical Indiana’s earliest Snowy Owl report apparently occurred between 1807 and 1818. During this period James J. Audubon regularly visited General George Rogers Clark in Clarksville, Indiana (Perkins, 1936). Below, is an account given by Audubon during that era (Audubon, J.J., 1967 Dove r Reprint, p 114-115):

“At the break of day, one morning, when I lay hidden in a pile of drift logs, at that place [Falls of the Ohio], waiting for a shot at some wild geese, I had an opportunity of seeing this Owl secure fish in the following manner:— While watching for their prey on borders of the ‘pots’ they invariably lay flat on the rock, with the body placed lengthwise along the border of the hole, the head also laid down, but turned toward the water. One might have supposed the bird sound asleep, as it would remain in the same position until a good opportunity of securing a fish occurred, which I believe was never missed; for, as the latter unwittingly rose to the surface, near the edge that instant the Owl thrust out the foot next the water, and with the quickness of lightning, seized it, and drew it out…. Whenever a fish of any size was hooked, as I may say, the Owl struck the other foot also into it, and flew off with is to a As the 2017-18 season progressed much whiter birds appeared with considerable distance. In two instances of this kind, I saw the bird regularity. Perhaps this resulted from carry its prey across the Western or Indiana Shute, into the wood, the adults moving south later than the as if to be quite out of harm’s way.” young birds. This handsome example was photographed by the author at the Reynolds Creek G.H.A. on 27 March. In those early days this conspicuous diurnal owl was often shot, perhaps to protect the domestic fowl that were maintained on most farms. For example, Butler (1908) stated, “One hot November 29, 1905, two miles southeast of Mellott, in Fountain County, by John Whalen, just after dusk, after it had killed two old hens.” However, others were killed and taken to taxidermists for mounting. C.M. Kirkpatrick (1950) shared the following. “The writer knows of one taxidermist who had at least seven owls on hand at one time but refused to divulge their collectors or where they were taken.” In a broader perspective Ruthven Deane estimated that during the winter on 1876-77 as many as 500 were killed in New England. Clearly, in that era many of the visiting Snowy Owls never returned to the tundra.

Perhaps Indiana’s greatest irruption occurred during the winter of 1905-06 (see map on the left). Indeed, Butler (1908) described this incursion as follows: “Snowy Owls were more generally distributed over the state [during] the winter of 1905-06 and more individuals have been reported than ever before since records have been kept.” Following this comment Butler listed three pages of Snowy Owl occurrences during that irruption. At that time there were precious few birders in the state and the statewide transportation system was in its infancy. Despite, these shortcomings at least 63 Snowy Owls were reported in 20 counties.

The above map shows the distribution of Snowy Owls during the legionary 1905-06 irruption. Note that no owls were reported

6 in two of the three lakefront counties. Modern data reveal that about 45 percent of Indiana’s Snowy Owls generally occur in these three counties. Consequently, this absence almost certainly reflects the relative poor coverage across the state. Without doubt the 63 birds reported comprised but a tiny fraction of the total number of owls present.

Although, the 1905-06 total pales in comparison to the 2017-18 count, considering the circumstances it surely a phenomenal event. In addition to the 1905-06 event, Mumford and Keller (1984) list ten additional winters, between 1926 and 1981, in which smaller irruptions occurred in the state.

During the years 1950 to 2018 (inclusive) at least one Snowy Owl was reported in Indiana on every year except four. Over this period the average annual count for the state was 13.4. However, better coverage in recent years has inflated this value: as the mean of the pre-2000 years was fewer than seven.

Current Status in Indiana The chronological distribution of Indiana’s reported Talk about a shocker. This panting Snowy Snowy Owls is shown in Figure 2. This plot includes Owl was perched upon a White County I- reports from 1881 to the present. The graph reveals that 65 road sign on 31 July 2004. Clearly, he autumn numbers increase rapidly in mid- November and would have been far more comfortable a peak in December. Thereafter, numbers decline rather thousand miles farther north. Photo by uniformly through mid-April. A few late departing birds John K. Cassady. are sprinkled into mid-May and even later. Interestingly, records have occurred in every month except September. The appearance of a Snowy Owls in May or July provides a most astonishing sight. Indeed, on her way to church on 10 June 2018 Kathryn Farnsworth spotted a Snowy perched on a power pole. Kathryn paused long enough to document the occurrence with a photo. This report was not included in the 189 birds discussed in this article, as it is outside the accepted winter timeframe.

The 2017-2018 Mega-Irruption A phenomenal 189 Snowy Owls were tallied during the 2017-18 season, which extended from 1 October 2017 through April of 2018. The first southbound bird arrived in Whiting on 26 October of 2017, where it was photographed by Zeke Escobedo. The final sighting occurred 21 April when Becky and Gary Dorman found one east of Palmyra in Harrison County. In between an astonishing 187 additional “Snowys" were logged, providing records in 48 of Indiana’s 92 counties. The largest number was recorded in Lake County, where the birds were concentrated along the lakefront and on Lake Michigan breakwaters. The above map shows the distribution of reports across the state.

When was the last time you saw a Snowy Owl perched in a tree bearing green leaves? Out of season birds occur rarely in Indiana. This individual spent a week roosting in this tree in Chesterton. Photo taken 8 May 2012 by the author.

Birders reveled in the abundance of these large white raptors and were thrilled by numerous exciting adventures. Surely the most amazing event occurred in December when a worker at the Whiting refinery counted 10 Snowy Owls inside the plant. Unfortunately, this report could never be absolutely confirmed so these birds were not included in the season total.

On 23 December the regular Saturday outing by John Cassady, Kim Ehn, Randy Pals, Lynn Vernon, and the author tallied four Snowys on the Indiana lakefront, plus a fifth just over the border in Illinois. The first owl found was perched on the breakwall at the Port of Indiana. The second consisted of a very pale bird that stood like a sentinel on the northwest corner of the BP protective rock barrier in Whiting. The final two involved distant birds perched on breakwaters in Indiana waters off Calumet Park, Illinois. While the group was studying the latter birds Lynn Vernon calmly announced that a much closer Snowy was just 200 m north of our position at the park. Unfortunately, that bird was in Illinois by about 50 m.

Without doubt, the seasons grandest Snowy Owl event occurred in LaPorte County on 6 March 2018 just west of New Carlisle. There on 7 March Michaele Klingerman noted, “I Still can’t

8 believe this happened again but I found all four Snowies last night. And at the same time on State Road 2, Leslie had a Snowy fly across the highway in front of her! Five!!!!!”

The highest concentration of birds occurred along Indiana’s northern border, and especially in the three Lake Michigan counties. However, an anomalously large number also appeared in Marion County. Of the eight birds reported in that county all but one was at the Indianapolis International Airport where they presented a hazard to aviation. Several of these birds were netted, banded, and transported to distant locations where they were released.

Irruption Mortality In addition to guns and cars visiting Snowy Formerly, some birding veterans suggested that most Owls face other challenges. Here, on the beach at of the visiting Snowy Owls failed to survive their Michigan City Harbor, the local Peregrine took winter trip to the south. A cursory examination the issue with the owl’s presence and spent ten minutes stooping on the owl. Both, however, soon reached a histogram in Figure 2 appears to support for this truce. Photo taken by the author on 17 December contention. Note that autumn numbers build to a 2017. migration peak in December; however, no corresponding peak is evident for a return flight in spring. In contrast, the histograms of most migratory birds show peaks in both spring and autumn (see right side of Fig. 3). However, Snowy Owls are winter visitors, not transients. Accordingly, their histograms should appear more like that of the Northern Shrike (left side of Fig. 3) than to a transient such as the Magnolia Warbler. And that is indeed the case as shown Figure 3.

Mercifully, as opposed to a century ago, it is now illegal to kill Snowy Owls; therefore, the number of birds shot has markedly decreased. Despite the reduction in shooting deaths, not all of the visiting Snowy Owls survive: indeed, the mortality rate for young raptors of any species is very high. In the United States the most common causes of Snowy Owl deaths involve vehicle collisions, rodent poisons, and electrocution on power lines.

Others have suggested that many of the visiting Snowy Owls starve to death. However, research has revealed that most of these Arctic migrants are perfectly healthy — in fact, researchers have discovered that during major irruptions, Snowy Owls tend to be fatter and heavier than those in non-flight years. Starvation is fairly rare and is usually the result of injury. Starving birds are also more likely to be captured and taken for rehabilitation (Project SNOWStorm website).

Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Brad Bumgardner, who provided numerous Snowy Owl reports for this summary. Thanks are also extended to John K. Cassady for sharing his photograph.

References Cited Audubon, John J., (1840-1844) The Birds of America, Dover reprint edition 1967, p 114-115.

Butler, Amos W. (1908) The Hawks and Owls of Indiana,

Holt, Denver W., Matt D. Larson, Norman Smith, Dave L. Evans, and David F. Parmelee (2015) Snowy Owl, Birds of North America, June 4, 2015.

Kitkpatrick, Charles M. (1950) Adult Snowy Owls, Indiana Audubon Quarterly, 28:51-54.

Mumford, R.E. and C.E. Keller (1984) The Birds of Indiana, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Ind. 376 pp.

Perkins, S.E. (1936) Episodes in the Life of Audubon in Indiana, Wilson Bull. 48:17-22. Project SNOWstorm website https://www.projectsnowstorm.org/what-is-an-irruption/

Spring Indiana Field Notes 2018

Bob Carper, Indianapolis, IN [email protected]

March turned cold with below normal temperatures on 2/3 of its days. Along with the cold came snow but the heaviest amounts were not in the usual lake effect region but on the SW corner. The state average temperature in March was 38.0°F, a chilly 2.7° below normal, the 48th coldest March on record. March state average precipitation came in at 3.94”. This is 0.54” above normal and ranks March 2018 as the 44th wettest March on record. Regionally March 2018 precipitation summed to near 85% of normal across northern Indiana and 125% of normal across central and southern Indiana. The coldest April in 92 years featured more than late season snow storms: tornadoes, wind damage, hail, heavy rain, flooding, water rescues, and lightning fires. The state average temperature for April was 45.2°F, a ridiculous 6.1° below normal. This ranks the month in a tie with 1904 as the 3rd coldest April on record in Indiana. The most recent colder April was nearly a century ago when a state average 44.4°F was tallied in 1926, the second coldest. April state average precipitation was more reasonable at 3.66”, which is 0.28” below normal. This number ranks April2018 as the 63rd driest April since state records began in 1895. Regionally April 2018 precipitation summed to near 75% of normal across northern Indiana, 110% of normal in central, and 90% of normal across southern Indiana.

As the calendar turned from April to May temperatures flipped dramatically away from the 3rd coldest April recorded in Indiana into its warmest May! The state average temperature for May was 70.1°F, a remarkable 8.1° above normal. This temperature easily breaks the old warmest May record of 68.5°F set in 1896. May state average precipitation was low at 3.38” which is 1.02” below normal. Regionally May 2018 precipitation have summed to near 105% of normal across northern Indiana, 60% of normal in central, and 75% of normal across southern Indiana. Weather info from http://www.iclimate.org/summary.asp

A Personal Note I’d like to note that I only received one personal highlight compared to several as I did four years ago. There are many items reported on Facebook (FB) and still some on IN-BIRD. But the majority are noted in eBird and not elsewhere. Too pull them out of eBird is a time-consuming process, so I’m sorry highlights are missed. I didn’t have time this year, but I see that one can request to Download Data from eBird so hopefully by next Spring I’ll be able access the Indiana eBird data better.

Spring Highlight:

The White-tailed Kite that Mark Welter found 18 May at Reynolds Creek Game Bird Habitat Area was undoubtedly the spring highlight.

Species Accounts:

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck – Stuart Tower observed three flying at Gibson Generating Station, Gibson, 20 May.

Fulvous Whistling-Duck – David Ward reported one from rural Allen. 29 May.

Cinnamon Teal – on 9 April Bob Huguenard photographed one in rural Laporte. A second record for the spring came from outside of Gibson Lake, Gibson, by Evan Speck on 21 April.

Eurasian Wigeon – Found by Stuart Tower on new pond. Rural Gibson. 22 April.

Harlequin Duck – The first of two birds reported this spring consisted of a male the Michael A. Topp found off Whiting Park on 4 March. Ryan J. Sanderson and Amy also observed a female at Michigan City Harbor on 20 May, which provided Indiana’s first record for May. The state’s next latest record occurred on 27 April 1992.

Pacific Loon – One discovered by Evan Speck at Bluegrass FWA, Vanderburgh, 8 April. A second was reported by Kirk Roth on Patoka Lake, Dubois. 22 April

Red-necked Grebe - Reported by Greg Majewski on 19 March at Fort Wayne, Allen, water treatment ponds.

Eared Grebe – Robert Hughes reported one on J. C. Murphey Lake, Willow Slough Fish and Wildlife Area, Newton. 21 April.

Neotropic Cormorant - Eric Michael reported on eBird 02 Apr - Bendix Park, St. Joseph. Also one seen by several people at Eagle Creek Park, Marion, 7 May and one in Tippecanoe by many, 14 April.

Brown Pelican – Kathy Williams first reported one April 22 on Heritage Lake, Putnam. The bird was only seen through the morning of the 23rd.

White-faced Ibis – Another discovery by Evan Speck, this time at Cane Ridge, Gibson, Apr 28.

WHITE-TAILED KITE - Mark Welter found a White-tailed Kite at Reynolds Creek Game Bird Habitat Area, Porter 18 May. This bird was Indiana’s third state record.

White-tailed Kite at Reynold’s Creek Gamebird Habitat Area on 18 May 2018. Photo by Matt Beatty. 12

Northern Goshawk – Dunes longshore counter, Kyle Witkor, recorded an immature at the Indiana Dunes State Park Longshore tower, Porter, 24 March.

King Rail - Walter Marcisz reported one from DuPont Natural Area, East Chicago, Lake, on 27 May.

PURPLE GALLINULE- Amber Hardy found a dead bird outside her work site in Jeffersonville, Clark, on 11 May. Amber provided a photo of the dead bird. This is Indiana’s 18th record.

Hudsonian Godwit – One reported in alternate plumage at Goose Pond GP4, Greene. Gary Langell and Amy Kearns. 25 April.

Marbled Godwit – Lone bird reported by William Buskirk at Old Bath, Franklin. April 17,

Piping Plover – On 16 April, Mary Nell Murphy photographed a singleton at Michigan City Harbor, Laporte. One was seen on 20 May by Ryan Sanderson at Michigan City, LaPorte. Many observers got to see the bird the following day as well. Aidan Rominger).

Whimbrel – A lone individual was reported by Jeremy Ross at Monty's Station, Patoka River NWR, Gibson. 2 May.

Ruff – Male spotted by Gary Bowman at Gibson Lake, Gibson. 21 Apr. A week and day later Apr 29 Jeff Matt Beatty got this excellent photo of the McCoy reported one at Kingsbury FWA, LaPorte. visiting Ruff at Kingsbury FWA on 29 April. Baird’s Sandpiper- Eric Michael photographed (1) at Baugo Bay, St. Joseph, on 8 April, which provided Indiana’s third earliest record.

Laughing Gull – One photographed on 19 Apr by David Russell at Mounds State Recreation Area, Franklin. On 20 May Ryan Sanderson one reported one at Michigan City, LaPorte.

Glaucous Gull- A dark eyed, first-cycle bird appeared at Morse Reservoir, Hamilton, on 7 April (Allee Forsberg & Kevin Cornell) and lingered there for days. On 18 May Matt S. Kalwasinski photographed a tardy first-cycle bird at Miller Beach, Lake, providing Indiana’s latest spring record. Apparently, this same individual was seen later that day on the Dunes Longshore Tower Site beach, Porter, (Richard Garrett). On subsequent days it was observed on the outer breakwater at Michigan City Harbor, LaPorte, (Sean Verkamp) where it was last reported on 25 May (John K. Cassady et al.).

White-winged Dove- Linda Smith photographed a single bird at her Kosciusko Co feeder on 31 May. 13

Merlin- Chesterton, Porter, resident Kevin B. Ryan nailed down Indiana’s second nesting by Merlins. The birds were present for a couple of months and on 23 May Kevin observed copulation. He was also observed feeding the female. The nest was visible in a tall white pine across the street from Kevin’s house. It is not believed that the nest was successful.

GYRFALCON – A white-morph was photographed by Marne Potter, Goose Pond, Greene, 18 March.

Snowy Owl - The final spring sighting occurred 21 April when Becky and Gary Dorman found one east of Palmyra in Harrison

County. The combined 2017/2018 winter/spring irruption Gyrfalcon photographed by produced an astonishing 187 Snowy Owls. Marne Potter just south of Goose Pond FWA on 18 March 2018. Western Kingbird - Annie Aguirre reported one from Cowles Bog, Porter, 18 May. This bird added to the onslaught of rarities seen at this year’s festival. Additional Porter county birds flew past the Dunes Longshore Tower on 24 May and 27 May with Brendan Grube and Kyle Witkor.

Blue-headed Vireo- A whopping 228 were reported this season constitutes the largest spring count on record. The peak daily count was the (7) logged by John Winebrenner in Franke Park, Allen, on 10 May.

Hermit Thrush- It was a record season for this thrush with 897 reported, more than tripling the season average. The peak count (also a record) was the (177) that Brad

Bumgardner tallied in the Indiana Dunes and Beverly Western Kingbird at the Indiana Dunes Shores, Porter, on 16 April. National Lakeshore Cowles Bog unit, 18 May 2018. Photo by John Kendall. Kirtland's Warbler – One discovered by Bruck Glick 12 May at Bonneyville Mill County Park, Elkhart is pending IBRC acceptance.

BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER- While visiting friends in Hobart, Lake, on 16 May for the Indiana Dunes Birding Festival, Joel Greenberg spotted an adult male just outside the window. It flew off and was never relocated. This individual provided Indiana’s third record and the first spring record.

Louisiana Waterthrush- A record early arrival (by one day) was singing at Pioneer Mothers, Orange, on 11 March by Noah Kearns.

Harris Sparrow – the lone report was at Sherry Burnett’s feeder, 1 May, Knox.

Rose-breasted Grosbeak- This finch arrived early and in record numbers, with 2398 reported for the season. Leland Shaum logged the highest daily count with (123) seen at multiple sites, but mainly in Goshen, Elkhart. Leland’s total is a state record.

Summer Tanager- The 666 reported this spring is an all-time high. The peak daily count was (21) that John Meredig logged at Lincoln State Park, Spencer, on 10 May.

Yellow-headed Blackbird - A lone bird was found at Goose Pond, Greene (John Mueller) on 9 March. A second bird was observed at the Tower Farm Wildlife Viewing Station, Crawford on 11 May by Stuart Tower. A third was found near McCool Basin by Bob Huguenard, Porter, 24 May.

Red Crossbill – Joe Bailey and Scott Evans found 14 at a rural location in Monroe, 9 March. The Indiana Dunes longshore tower, Porter, recorded 18 birds for the Female Red Crossbill photographed at the spring season. feeders of Carl Huffman, Putnam Co., 30 May 2018.

A History of Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary

Carl Wilms, Connersville IN [email protected]

A frequent question posed by visitors to sanctuary residents is, “How did this place come to be?” Such curiosity is responded to with a much shorter variation of this article. Explaining the details of Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary’s (MGBS) origins may be beyond the casual visitor’s interest, but it may be of interest to Indiana Audubon Society’s (IAS) membership.

Prior to the arrival of European settlers, the occupants of SE Indiana were a collection of Eastern Native American tribes who were refugees from Eastern Native American settlements. I have tried to pin down exact tribal residents, but the attempt to do so has confronted me with my traditions of my European settlers, which like to identify specific boarders within which the Native Americans resided. I don’t believe the Native Americans practiced such precise delineations. I am fairly confident that the Native Americans in the vicinity of Mary Gray were members of the Miami, Potawatomi, and Delaware nations. They had formed allegiances that were trying to limit the advancement of European settlers to areas south of the Ohio River. The efforts by the confederacy of Indian Nations suffered a devastating defeat at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, which led to the Treaty of Greenville, which is also known as the Twelve Mile Treaty. This event is significant to the history of MGBS because a portion of the demarcation line bisects MGBS.

Soon after the treaty was signed (and broken) surveyors canvased the wilderness in anticipation of settlers’ arrival. Fayette County Courthouse records indicate that John Gibson Gray (1789-1870, Finly Gray’s father) purchased a portion of the land that was to eventually become MGBS on February 2, 1832. John Gray married Mary Ronald on 9-19-1821. John Gray is buried at the Gray Cemetery that is located on the west end of the MGBS property. Note that Finly’s grandfather, Robert, already owned property that was to become MGBS. The map below is from the surveyor’s log.

Note the map represents a road traversing the current MGBS property in a SW / NE sweep. Conversations with the current Fayette County surveyor revealed that many such roads from the 1800’s were “representational” and not necessarily accurate. But a 1876 map (below) reveals roads more accurately. The arrow on the right reflects a more realistic path that manages the topography of the land. Portions of it can be found across the property. The left arrow reveals a road whose remnants are clearly present in the forest today. It was along this route that Dora Halstead lived until the early 1990s. Dora was a tenant farmer for Finly Gray 16 and was afforded life-long residence by Finly in Finly’s will. When Dora left his house it was inspected and found to be infested with termites. The home was offered to the local volunteer fire department to use as a practice site and it was burned to the ground. Its foundation remains. The barn that was on site was deconstructed and salvaged in the early 1990s.

County maps in 1856 and in 1896 indicate the John Gray had acquired significant land holdings beyond what was to become MGBS. Note there is an entry on the 1896 map (below) that divides the western portion of what is to become MGBS, into parcels including “Mary Gray Hrs 40 A”. 1856

The construction date of Finly and Alice Grays’ homestead is not known at this point. It may have been built in the early 1900s. However, it foundations still exist amidst the forest growth that is trying to reclaim the property. I believe Denzil Barricklow told me that this home was leveled by a tornado in 1961. The 1956 aerial photo below shows the site with what appears to be significant activity. Also note the lane present in the photograph. This may reveal part of the route of the county road that once traversed the property.

1956

Finly and Alice Gray continued to add to their property holdings over the years. By 1947, time of donation to the Indiana Audubon Society, they had close to 650 acres. The 1956 photo (below) is the best documentation of the transitions the property has seen since IAS took ownership. This image was taken shortly after the Indiana Audubon Society had received the land as the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary. Note the clear indications as to the farming activity that had obviously been taking place, or recently stopped. Also note the parcels that clearly show forested acreage. The white square indicates the area currently proposed to be included in the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Nature Preserve program. The white circle indicates the location of the former Girl Scout camp, Delawana. The MGBS property extends another couple of hundred yards to the west (left) beyond the image.

This brief review of the history of the titled land that comprises MGBS brings us to how the Indiana Audubon Society came to take ownership of such a wonderful asset. Finly Gray was a US Congressman (March 4, 1911 - March 3, 1917 & March 4, 1933 - January 3, 1939) who, 18 among other advocacies, promoted rural electrification and was attributed the installation of over 10,000 miles of electric lines that brought affordable electricity to Indiana’s rural areas (1939, Muncie Post-Democrat). I have heard that when Finly heard objections to power lines traversing private property he responded by forcefully saying he’d allow lines across his land. And, this was the case until the 1980’s when the power company tired of scouting MGBS for downed power lines and rerouted the lines along county roads. Remnant power poles can still be found through MGBS.

The following paragraphs heavily rely on the 1943 Indiana Audubon Yearbook where Dr. Earl Brooks (IAS President 1928-1936) recounted the formation of the plans to establish MGBS. Brooks tells of the process starting with an article in a 1933 Indianapolis newspaper that caught his interest. He read about Congressman Finly Gray and his wife Alice, returning to Washington D.C. Alice Gray commented that she was going to miss her Indiana birds and wildflowers while she was in Washington with her husband. Dr. Brooks took it upon himself to write Alice and invite her to join the IAS. Alice responded to his offer quickly, stating, “Just now I haven’t time to be active, but am ready to help all I can. I am enclosing $5.00 for a sustaining membership.”

Dr. Brooks read more articles written by Alice Gray that were published in Washington D.C. newspapers. She stated her growing devotion to nature. Regarding birds, Alice wrote, “The more I study the birds, the more each one of these little hosts of the air becomes a source of pleasure, a curiosity, a mystery to me. I no longer feel alone in the country, those wings are no longer only feathers, those cries no longer only noises; they are arrivals, wayfarers, friends.”

In 1935, just two years after joining IAS, Alice Gray wrote to Dr. Brooks in response to the first IAS questionnaire that was generated during his presidency. One question solicited ideas on how to add to the IAS Endowment Fund (now the IAS Development Fund). She stated she was eager to discuss an idea she and her husband were considering. A meeting with IAS officers and others was held in the fall of 1936. It appears the Grays had an agenda for this meeting the other attendees were not aware of. I suspect the Grays wanted to obtain an accurate impression of the dedication of IAS before they considered their private plans further. Several additional meetings were then held with Dr. Brooks and the Grays. Finly Gray invited Dr. Brooks and other officers of IAS to come visit and suggested they bring extra footwear should they choose to spend a couple of hours hiking the property.

On January, 1940 the Gray’s plan was revealed to the IAS Board of Directors (BOD) and on June 20, 1941, the BOD unanimously passed a resolution accepting the Gray’s proposal. The Grays intended on donating their properties in Fayette County to IAS with the stipulation that their property would establish the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary as a living memorial to their daughter, Mary, who had been ill and died early in life.

The death of Alice Gray (1943) brought the Canal House (former headquarters of the Whitewater Canal) under IAS’s charge and 264 acres of land subject to Finly’s will. The death of Finly (1947) bestowed the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary to IAS but final legal details were not settled until several years later.

Financing MGBS operations has always been a challenge addressed through dedicated contributions of IAS members. The sale of Canal House provided initial resources that 19 established the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary Endowment and promoted the survival of MGBS. Many of the IAS Directors during negotiations with the Grays, and during MGBS’s early development were adamant that the financial management of MGBS was not to be tied to the financial operations of the IAS. In other words, MGBS would have to support itself; it was not to be tied to membership dues or other IAS funding. This approach is still maintained today.

Perusing yellowed documents in the workroom of Brooks Hall relayed stories on the early development of MGBS. Dr. Brooks maintained his enthusiastic momentum of MGBS by becoming the Executive Director of the property. Early residents/caretakers of the property were charged rent, which could be erased by efforts to maintain the property. On several occasions, the rental income was of great importance to the sanctuary, as the funds were needed to meet expenditures. Farming activity (share cropping or cash rental of acreage) was instrumental in providing funds for MGBS’s operations. Several timber harvests were conducted. Dr. Brooks appears to have maintained the attitude of doing what he felt was right and asking for forgiveness later, if required. He secured a $10,000 Lilly grant and membership funding to design and build the headquarters building which now bears his name. Additional timber harvests provided much of the lumber for the building. He also supervised early residents and renters.

One of the best intentions of Dr. Brooks was the planting of bird friendly habitat throughout the property. I found his notes that confirmed the ordering of thousands of pine trees to reforest parts of the agricultural acreage on the property. Many of these pines were to provide income (Christmas trees) as well as wildlife habitat. But he also ordered and planted thousands of multi- flora rose bushes. Yes, these provide bird habitat and mast; but we now know how invasive they are. He also developed, and secured funding for the planting of the “Arboretum for the Birds.” This arboretum is located just south of the main parking area at the sanctuary. It was a massive undertaking. Former gricultural fields were to be planted using shrubs and trees that would provide wonderful blossoms in the spring and mast for birds and wildlife throughout the year. He secured sponsors for the trails and ordered plantings. His intentions were nothing but the best. But, we now know many of the plants he selected are invasive and now provide targets for eradication.

The red barn at MGBS might be the most photographed object on the property. The image below is from a note card that depicts the barn in its younger years. Note Brooks Hall (built 1958) in the background.

The barn had extensive remodeling in the 1970’s and had the dining area expanded to what it is today. The kitchen was utilized by the “Columbia Ladies” who provided meals for many years as a fundraiser for their church. The exterior was updated in 2003 and provides a maintenance free siding. The most recent remodeling (removing the flat roof and updating the kitchen) was feasible due to the gift of the Federick Test Estate in memory of Agazzi Test who was the IAS President during the acquisition of MGBS. 20

Notes from local farmers, Soil Conservation Agents, Dora Halstead, and others document the importance of farming income for MGBS during the early years. This practice continued until 2007 when the Sanctuary Committee determined that farming practices were not in the best interest of the IAS Mission Statement and that the funding of MGBS was becoming sufficient to not require the modest income generated by farming. Former fields are now classified as “Wildlands” and are in various stages of succession.

In 1975, Phyllis Yuhas, (former faculty with Ball State and Red-tail Land Conservancy advocate) contributed personal funds to purchase additional acreage to the south of the entrance lane. This brought the property to its current ~695 acres.

The property has benefited from several consistent residents who viewed their residence at MGBS more as a mission, than as a “rental” agreement. Edna Banta (who is reported to have been the first female naturalist with the IN Department of natural resources) resided at the #1 residence from 1952 - 1962 after retiring from teaching in Indianapolis and holding summer positions at McCormick’s Creek State Park. It is reported that she was thrilled with Dr. Brooks purchasing of a new push mower…the only mower available. Her sister, Dolly, also lived with Edna for part of this period. These women also cared for “Joe” the talking crow. Older visitors to MGBS still inquire of his survival from time to time

The Barricklow family oversaw operations from 1964 – 2005. A recent graduate from Ball State University, Denzil Barricklow was a music teacher in the Cambridge City area and commuted for decades. Deanna Barricklow raised their children (Tim and Suzanna), welcomed school groups, scouts, and visitors, and completed graduate school to becomeb an elementary teacher in Fayette County. During their tenure at MGBS, they practiced a frugality that was essential to pulling MGBS through lean financial times. Nails that were pulled from boards were not automatically thrown away; many were straightened and saved for the next project. Denzil’s mechanical abilities were challenged; but rarely defeated. Their can-do attitude allowed them to complete most maintenance tasks on their own thus preventing the MGBS budget from using red ink. The Barricklows have been recognized for their dedication to nature conservation by receiving the Cooper Audubon’s Robert H. and Esther L. (Munro) Cooper Conservation Award and the IAS’s Earl Brooks Award for conservation.

My family has resided at MGBS from 1982-1994 and from 2005 to the present. One of the most striking changes in the operations at MGBS that I have noted between stays is the financial security that is slowly gaining momentum with the MGBS Endowment Fund. This fact is supported by changes in maintenance routines. In the 1980s, one of the buildings was painted every year. Now the buildings all have paint-free siding. The mowers have been significantly upgraded. Cub Cadets have yielded to zero-turn- radius mowers. The 1947 8-N tractor that Denzil nursed into operation has been replaced by a 4-wheel drive, hydrostatic, Kubota. The maintenance shed, which used to be three sided, is now double-size and fully enclosed. Several significant bequests have been received in recent years that have allowed these upgrades and have enabled the Endowment Fund to come close to meeting the operating budget for Mary Gray. It is important to state that the operating budget remains fairly basic and is primarily designed to cover sanctuary operations at a maintenance level. Dreams of providing salaried

21 positions that can dedicate full time maintenance and educational programming to local and statewide audiences are becoming closer to realization.

Distributed among the Bantas, Barricklows, and Wilms stays at MGBS, there have been many (20?) individuals, couples, and families that have had relatively short tenures at MGBS. Understanding and internalizing the mission of MGBS is a necessary attribute of its residents. Yes, the porches of the residences do make wonderful spots to drink morning coffee and observe the birds. I have done that at least twice in 25 years.

Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary’s future looks promising. Recent estate gifts from Federick Test and Ray Sayre have allowed significant capital improvements and added to the Endowment Fund for long-term sustenance. Other trusts have been established by individuals and families in support MGBS. Current efforts to combat invasive plants are being planned and implemented to provide the best habitat the property can offer.

There are goals held by Dr. Brooks that have yet to be realized. His vision of MGBS serving as an educational mecca for school groups and nature enthusiasts has been limited to a degree by funding to support such endeavors. The recent addition of the IAS’s Executive Director’s position is a step in this direction. Since Brad Bumgardner has come on board, there is a noticeable increase in visitors, phone and email inquiries, and statewide interest in this wonderful asset. Progress is being made along many lines. Facilities, habitat, and public notoriety are on the rise. The upcoming hummingbird celebration will continue to promote the efforts of those that came before us.

(Note: When asked to write this article I was excited to take the project on. As pieces fell into place, it became more and more evident that there were many pieces missing. I reluctantly included hearsay recollections knowing that some would fall to future critique and fact-finding. I eagerly invite comments from those who have important corrections or additions to my rendition of this story. That is the intent of presenting writing. This article is the beginning of pulling this important history together for IAS’s important landmark, Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary. I could easily spend weeks reading the records located in storage at Brooks Hall.)

References Cited

Cooper Award, http://cooperaudubon.org/award_winners.htm, Accessed March 24, 2018

Fayetee County Marriages Indiana University, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/8383/10479, Accessed March 26, 2018

Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary, Indiana Audubon Year Book, 1943, Vol XXI, pp 8-15.

Finly Gray Rural Electrification, Muncie Post-Democrat, https://newspapers.library.in.gov/cgi- bin/indiana?a=d&d=BALLMPD19381104-01.1.2, Accessed March 26, 2018

Gray, Finly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finly_Hutchinson_Gray. Accessed March 24, 2018.

Master Plan for Mary Gray Nature Preserve

Indiana Audubon Board of Directors, Connersvile, IN [email protected]

Indiana Audubon’s Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary received dedicated nature preserve status at the Indiana Natural Resources Commission’s bi-monthly meeting this past July in Indianapolis. The commission’s approval makes the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary the 287th dedicated nature preserve in the state system.

The Mary Gray preserve, southwest of Connersville, is a 38-acre portion of the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary. The site is included in Alton Lindsey’s “Natural Areas in Indiana.” Research is being conducted at the preserve by bird banding during the spring and fall migration of the Northern Saw-whet owl and Ruby-throated Hummingbirds. The site also hosts the annual Hummingbird Migration Celebration on August 11. A turtle population research project has also been in progress since 1985.

Owned and managed by The Indiana Audubon Society and located approximately one hour east of Indianapolis, the preserve consists of a high-quality mesic upland forest with a showy spring wildflower display. The forest is dominated by sugar maple and tulip tree. These community types, along with their component flora and fauna, contain many species that are area- sensitive forest-interior plants and animals that depend upon large, unfragmented forest ecosystems.

The following is hereby adopted as the Master Plan for Mary Gray Nature Preserve, being dedicated as a nature preserve:

This Master Plan applies to a nature preserve containing mesic upland forest. It is owned and administered by the Indiana Audubon Society, Inc (the Administrator). The nature preserve is located in Jackson Township in Fayette County, Indiana, a more detailed description being contained in the "Articles of Dedication" for Mary Gray Nature Preserve of which this Master Plan is a part and to which it is attached. The management, custody and use of the Nature Preserve shall be the responsibility of the Indiana Audubon Society, or such other organization as may succeed The Indiana Audubon Society’s rights and duties pursuant to the Nature Preserves Act, the Articles of Dedication of the Nature Preserve, and this Master Plan.

The Nature Preserve may be used for all purposes stated in the Nature Preserves Act, but subject to the provisions of this Master Plan. Action required or permitted by this Master Plan may be taken only by the Indiana Audubon Society, or by parties designated in writing by the Indiana Audubon Society for particular actions. All development and natural area management shall 23 require the joint approval of the director of the Division of Nature Preserves and the Indiana Audubon Society.

The following developments, structures and facilities may be permitted within the Nature Preserve. See the Mary Gray Bird Sanctuary for a complete list of Master Plan language. • Boundary markers and boundary fences may be placed as needed around the perimeter. Such developments should be installed with the least possible disturbance to the soil, plants and animals. • Foot trails, foot bridges, boardwalks, trail markers, interpretive signs, observation sites and ditch or stream crossings may be constructed and maintained after sufficient study is completed to help determine proper placement. • Fire breaks may be maintained as needed, by the Administrator. • Such other developments, construction or improvements that are 1) approved in writing, by the Indiana Audubon Society, or its designee, and the Director of the Division of Nature Preserves of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, or its designee. • Species of plants and animals that are considered noxious by State Law, and exotic and aggressive native species which are detrimental to the quality of the Nature Preserve, may be controlled in accordance with State Law. In the case of plants, the control and removal shall be by manual methods (chain saws, brush cutters and hand tools), a tractor pulled bush hog or similar implement and/or prescribed burning. Woody material cut to improve the quality of the Nature Preserve may be burned in piles on site or chipped and scattered in the Nature Preserve. Any disposition of woody material shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the site and is otherwise consistent with the intent of this Master Plan. Herbicides and biological agents proven to be effective and safe in natural areas management may be used in conjunction with such manual methods. • Hunting and trapping under the laws of the State of Indiana may be permitted within the Nature Preserve with the written approval of the director of the Division of Nature Preserves, in order to control populations of specific animal species. • Control of biotic succession by artificial means may be undertaken only if 1) preservation of a particular species is determined by The Indiana Audubon Society to be consistent with the purpose of the Nature Preserve and/or 2) such control is necessary for the maintenance or restoration of the natural communities for which the Nature Preserve was dedicated. • Controlled burning shall be permitted only as a properly used tool to maintain and/or restore natural conditions on this Nature Preserve. A portion of the Preserve may be burned annually for natural community management, as determined by the Indiana Audubon Society. Burning shall be done in accordance with the most current information available on fire management and shall be done only using the methods and materials specified in a Burning Plan prepared by the Division of Nature Preserves. • Except as permitted elsewhere in this Master Plan, native plants and animals may only be introduced, re-introduced or removed from the Nature Preserve under the conditions listed below. All such actions shall require the written permission of the Director of the Division of Nature Preserves. The species to be introduced must constitute a normal component of a natural community contained within the Nature Preserve and its introduction must 1) have a positive effect on the natural quality and integrity of the Nature Preserve and/or 2) correct a negative effect caused by its absence. In order to minimize the possibility of introducing non-native ecotypes into the area, the source of the organisms to be introduced should, if possible, be from within the Switzerland Hills Section of the Bluegrass Natural Region as defined by Homoya, et al. 1985 The Natural Regions of Indiana. Proc. Indiana Academy of Science 94:245-268.

Threat of climate change on a songbird population through its impacts on breeding

Thomas W. Bonnot , W. Andrew Cox, Frank R. Thompson, and Joshua J. Millspaugh [email protected]

Understanding global change processes that threaten species viability is critical for assessing vulnerability and deciding on appropriate conservation actions. Here we combine individual-based and metapopulation models to estimate the effects of climate change on annual breeding productivity and population viability up to 2100 of a common forest songbird, the Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), across the Central Hardwoods ecoregion, a 39.5-million-hectare area of temperate and broadleaf forests in the USA. Our approach integrates local-scale, individual breeding productivity, estimated from empirically derived demographic parameters that vary with landscape and climatic factors (such as forest cover, daily temperature), into a dynamic-landscape metapopulation model that projects growth of the regional population over time. We show that warming temperatures under a worst-case scenario with unabated climate change could reduce breeding productivity to an extent that this currently abundant species will suffer population declines substantial enough to pose a significant risk of quasi-extinction from the region in the twenty-first century. However, we also show that this risk is greatly reduced for scenarios where emissions and warming are curtailed. These results highlight the importance of considering both direct and indirect effects of climate change when assessing the vulnerability of species.

As evidence of climate change impacts on plant and wildlife populations grows, understanding global change processes that threaten species viability may be a necessary precursor to deciding on the most appropriate actions for conservation. Efforts to identify how climate change will affect species occur across a range of ecological and empirical scales. At the broadest scales, researchers assess range-wide vulnerability for a species or suite of species, often through the use of species distribution (or niche models) and population models. These approaches predict shifts in distribution or changes in population dynamics across large scales based on changes in climate and vegetation but have been criticized for the lack of relevant processes they consider. For example, distribution models that focus only on climate assume (perhaps erroneously) that species and their habitat/niche necessarily closely track changes in climate. Other recent advances such as dynamic-landscape metapopulation models (DLMPs) provide a comprehensive and mechanistic approach to modelling both population dynamics and distribution from changes in habitat under climate change but fail to consider potentially significant and more direct impacts of climate on demographic processes.

The weakness of these approaches is made apparent by the increasing body of evidence that indicates that climate change directly (and indirectly) affects the demographic parameters that drive population growth. For example, vulnerability in key species traits such as physiological tolerances and diets and habitat can lead to altered demographics. For many birds, population persistence is sensitive to the rates at which young are produced, which can change as a function of temperature. In the Midwestern USA, greater daily temperatures can reduce nest survival and overall productivity for forest-dwelling songbirds, probably because of increased predation from 25

snakes and potentially other predators. Studies such as these provide a better mechanistic understanding of how climate change may alter the key demographic rates that contribute to population growth but scaling up to estimate population-level responses requires a quantitative approach that integrates climate and habitat on a broader scale.

Translating individual-level climate effects into population impacts can be difficult when relationships between climatic variables and demographic parameters occur in the form of empirical findings or statistical models and relate to local temporal and spatial scales. For example, survival of individuals and nests is modelled on daily timescales, often as a function of local habitat and daily temperature and precipitation, thus complicating predictions of their fates for an entire region, season or year. Many processes are also subject to variation in the individual traits, behaviours or adaptations that can mitigate impacts. For example, breeding birds often renest following successful or failed nests, which might offset the negative impact of increased temperatures on productivity, but the stochastic nature of individual behaviour in these contexts prevents generalizations. Therefore, accurately predicting the impacts of climate change on productivity and population growth will require methods that can model local processes, such as nest survival, under future climates, in a manner that accounts for local factors and individual behaviour and then can be integrated with metapopulation models at broader scales.

Here, we use a two-step process to overcome the challenges of scaling up from individual to population-level impacts of climate change on Acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens; hereafter ‘flycatcher’), a common North American passerine, through the year 2100 across a 39.5-million-hectare region of temperate and broadleaf forests in the USA known as the Central Hardwoods (Fig. 1). First, we used empirically derived estimates of nest survival and productivity within an individual-based model (IBM) to estimate reproduction of individual birds throughout the region under various scenarios of climate change in this century. We account for individual behaviours, such as renesting, that might inadvertently mitigate the impacts on overall 26 productivity. We then integrate those productivity estimates into a DLMP that enables us to project population growth while accounting for uncertainty in adult and juvenile survival by considering a range of rates. From these outputs, we predict the risk climate change poses to the flycatcher population.

We found that climate warming reduced flycatcher nest success (defined as the compound probability of a nest surviving the entire 32-day period to fledge young) and annual productivity, posing a significant risk to population viability on a large spatial scale. By the end of the century (2090–2100), breeding season temperatures were projected to increase under all scenarios. A business-as-usual path for emissions (the GFDL-CM3-8.5 scenario) showed a severe 7.55 °C warming in the mean daily maximum breeding season temperature across the region by the end of the century, a 25% increase over the recent past (1981–2010) (Fig. 2a). By contrast, emissions in the MRI-CGCM3-2.6 and CanESM2-4.5 scenarios stabilize and then slowly decrease after the middle of the twenty-first century, in line with the mild (1.5 °C) and moderate (2 °C) increases in daily maximum temperatures targeted under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) agreement. Under these scenarios, estimated productivities averaged between 1.52 and 1.70 fledglings per female per year across the Central Hardwoods in the first decade (Fig. 2b). Annual productivity declined approximately 5% under the MRI-CGCM3-2.6 scenario to approximately 1.6 fledglings per female by 2100. Productivity under the two more severe warming scenarios declined similarly up to 2050 but diverged thereafter. From that point, overall declines in productivity dissipated under the CanESM2-4.5, while productivity continued declining up to 2100 under the GFDL-CM3-8.5 scenario, falling 30% below 2010– 2020 levels (Fig. 2b). Our models indicate that under severe warming projections, flycatchers breeding in many areas of the Central Hardwoods would produce <1 fledgling per female per year by 2100.

The effects of climate change are often studied for threatened species. However, we found substantial risk facing a species that is still relatively common. We estimated an initial abundance of approximately 4 million breeding females in the population in 2010. Yet, increasingly more severe climate warming impacts on productivity resulted in increased population declines and elevated risk of local extinction over the next century. We project that flycatchers in the Central Hardwoods under the business-as-usual scenario face a 34% risk of declining to quasi-extinction levels by 2100. That is more than a threefold increase in risk compared to the MRICGCM3-2.6 scenario (Table 1 and Supplementary Figs. 1, 2 and 3). Many songbird species are affected by the same communities of predators and, to varying extents, are susceptible to similar temperature effects. Therefore, not only do our projections highlight the risk of local extinction facing flycatchers, they imply concern for other birds in the community affected by similar processes. Our study is another example of increasingly comprehensive case studies that have identified climate change as an existential threat to entire populations.

Although predictive modelling includes multiple assumptions and uncertainties, a number of points underscore the credibility of this risk. First, reproductive estimates produced by the IBM follow a pattern of warming temperatures and declining nest survival observed over recent decades. Studies that took place in the region from 2000–2010 reported nest success rates of >40% during a decade when average daily maximum temperatures during breeding averaged 29.7 °C (Supplementary Fig. 3). Since 2010, however, average daily maximum temperatures have increased to 30.1 °C while probabilities of a nest surviving to success approached 30%. Our 27

temperature and nest success projections for 2010–2016 bracket these later values. Second, despite multiple stochastic processes inherent in the model, the severity of declines in productivity and their ultimate effects on population growth tracked warming patterns predicted under each climate scenario, where increased severity of warming produced greater productivity declines and increased risk (Table 1). Even the midcentury asymptote in temperature, inherent in the 4.5 Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP), is evident in individual model results (Fig. 4). These patterns occurred despite holding the landscape (that is, habitat) constant, thus isolating the role of temperature in nest survival, relative to changes in habitat. And finally, we used a population model to translate productivity declines into population impacts that were robust to uncertainty in patterns can be just as important as changes in magnitude. At the same time, processes such as temperature’s influence on nest survival can be offset in complex ways by traits such as behaviour. The propensity of Acadian flycatchers to renest following a failed attempt mediated the declines in daily nest survival, resulting in relatively smaller declines in productivity than would have otherwise occurred (Supplementary Fig. 5). This example of phenotypic plasticity demonstrates an adaptive capacity of flycatchers to mitigate climate change impacts. These results highlight the nuanced nature of climate impacts and the importance of examining ecological processes at the scales with which they interact with climate

Certain key assumptions inject uncertainty into our models. First, our projected outcomes are based on past relationships that we applied to future conditions, and it is appropriate to question the stationarity of those processes. The most likely mechanism underlying the temperature effect on nest survival is the increased predation by snakes (a major nest predator in the Central Hardwoods) with increasing ambient temperatures due to increased metabolic rates and mobility. However, declines in nest survival may lessen if snake predation plateaus under climate change as more days exceed temperatures at which snakes begin reducing activity (>35 °C)14,15. By contrast, metabolic requirements also increase for endothermic predators such as small mammals. Climate warming might also affect the demographics and growth of snake populations, which could affect predation levels. We modelled climate’s effects assuming a constant landscape. This assumption allowed us to better distinguish the effects of climate change from those of land-use change, but it will certainly be violated. Rather, changes in climate and landscape are likely to interact with other processes to affect nest productivity, alter the amount of available habitat, and impact flycatcher population growth. Furthermore, survival 28 throughout the full annual cycle is a major driver of population change in short-lived species. Therefore, a more complete assessment requires improved understanding of all demographic processes and their interactions during the breeding, wintering and migration periods under climate change. Finally, a century is a long time for animals to evolve in response to environmental change and adaptations could play a large role in the long term. Thus, more information on demographic processes is needed to more comprehensively assess risk to flycatchers.

Despite this uncertainty, a potential drop in population of more than 3.7 million female flycatchers within less than a century constitutes a decline that is both substantial and rapid. Demographics are a critical aspect of assessing vulnerability and designing conservation actions because of the sensitivity and speed at which populations respond to their changes. Our results reinforce this idea and serve as a warning that diligence will be required to identify and manage threats of this nature. Much focus is given to the impacts of climate change on the distribution of habitats. However, we projected flycatcher declines even with adequate habitat, indicating that assessing vulnerability through only the lens of habitat could leave wildlife populations at risk. Moreover, these projections question the effectiveness of habitat management alone in conserving populations when demographics are affected. We suggest more attention should be given to the mechanisms by which climate affects vital rates, interspecies interactions, and other demographic processes if we are to have a realistic understanding of the threats facing species and how to address them.

The threat climate warming poses for flycatcher productivity presents a formidable challenge to ensuring the viability of the Central Hardwoods population. However, the more we understand the mechanisms through which climate change threatens populations, the more we increase our ability to plan conservation to address those threats. Habitat restoration for the sake of more habitat may not effectively offset impacts to reproduction. However, restoration that reduces forest fragmentation and decreases edge could reduce predation and brood parasitism rates and improve productivity. The scale of this threat could necessitate a comprehensive approach that targets other demographics. For example, analyses have demonstrated the power that reducing mortality can have on songbird populations in this region. Finally, our projections demonstrated the potential for the flycatcher productivity and population growth to respond if emissions and warming can be curtailed. Therefore, a primary source of uncertainty in the risk facing flycatchers of the Central Hardwoods is the degree of emissions and climate warming that transpires.

Methods Methods including statements of data availability and any associated accession codes and references, are available at https://doi. org/10.1038/s41558-018-0232-8.

References 1. Akçakaya, H. R., Butchart, S. H. M., Watson, J. E. M. & Pearson, R. G. Preventing species extinctions resulting from climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1048–1049 (2014). 2. Grimm, V. & Railsback, S. F. Individual-Based Modeling and Ecology (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2013). 3. Cox, W. A., Tompson, F. R.III, Reidy, J. L. & Faaborg, J. Temperature can interact with landscape factors to afect songbird productivity. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1064–1074 (2013). 4. Bonnot, T. W., Tompson, F. R.III & Millspaugh, J. J. Dynamic-landscape metapopulation models reveal species-specifc population responses to landscapes projected under climate change. Ecosphere 8, e01890 (2017). 5. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 271–359 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014). 6. Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. 40, 677–697 (2009). 7. Iverson, L. R. et al. Multi-model comparison on the efects of climate change on tree species in the eastern U.S.: results from an enhanced niche model and process-based ecosystem and landscape models. Landscape Ecol. 32, 1327–1346 (2016). 8. Moritz, C. & Agudo, R. Te future of species under climate change: resilience or decline? Science 341, 504–508 (2013). 9. Ralston, J., DeLuca, W. V., Feldman, R. E. & King, D. I. Realized climate niche breadth varies with population trend and distribution in North American birds. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 1173–1180 (2016). 10. Wang, W. J., He, H. S., Tompson, F. R., Fraser, J. S. & Dijak, W. D. Landscape- and regional-scale shifs in forest composition under climate change in the Central Hardwood Region of the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 149–163 (2016). 11. Willis, S. G. et al. Integrating climate change vulnerability assessments from species distribution models and trait-based approaches. Biol. Conserv. 190, 167–178 (2015). 12. Townsend, A. K. et al. Te interacting efects of food, spring temperature, and global climate cycles on population dynamics of a migratory songbird. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 544–555 (2016). 13. Cox, W. A., Tompson, F. R. & Reidy, J. L. Te efects of temperature on nest predation by mammals, birds, and snakes. Auk 130, 784–790 (2013). 14. George, A. D., Tompson, F. R. & Faaborg, J. Isolating weather efects from seasonal activity patterns of a temperate North American Colubrid. Oecologia 178, 1251–1259 (2015). 15. Weatherhead, P. J., Sperry, J. H., Carfagno, G. L. F. & Blouin-Demers, G. Latitudinal variation in thermal ecology of North American ratsnakes and its implications for the efect of climate warming on snakes. J. Term. Biol. 37, 273–281 (2012). 16. Evans, M. E. K., Merow, C., Record, S., McMahon, S. M. & Enquist, B. J. Towards process- based range modeling of many species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 860–871 (2016). 17. Beever, E. A. et al. Improving conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for understanding species’ fundamental and realized adaptive capacity. Conserv. Lett. 9, 131–137 (2016). 18. Lany, N. K. et al. Breeding timed to maximize reproductive success for a migratory songbird: the importance of phenological asynchrony. Oikos 125, 656–666 (2016). 30

19. IPCC Climate Change 2013: Te Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013). 20. Fordham, D. A. et al. Adapted conservation measures are required to save the Iberian lynx in a changing climate. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 899–903 (2013). 21. Hunter, C. M. et al. Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology 91, 2883–2897 (2010). 22. Selwood, K. E., McGeoch, M. A. & Mac Nally, R. Te efects of climate change and land-use change on demographic rates and population viability. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 90, 837– 853 (2015). 23. Tanner, E. P. et al. Extreme climatic events constrain space use and survival of a ground- nesting bird. Glob. Chang Biol. 23, 1832–1846 (2017). 24. Dijak, W. D. et al. Revision and application of the LINKAGES model to simulate forest growth in central hardwood landscapes in response to climate change. Landscape Ecol. 32, 1365–1384 (2016). 25. Jørgensen, P. S. et al. Continent-scale global change attribution in European birds— combining annual and decadal time scales. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 530–543 (2016). 26. Bonnot, T. W., Tompson, F. R. & Millspaugh, J. J. Extension of landscapebased population viability models to ecoregional scales for conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2041–2053 (2011). 27. Rushing, C. S. et al. Spatial and temporal drivers of avian population dynamics across the annual cycle. Ecology 98, 2837–2850 (2017). 28. Alberti, M. et al. Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 8951–8956 (2017). 29. Bonnot, T. W., Tompson, F. R., Millspaugh, J. J. & Jones-Farrand, D. T. Landscape-based population viability models demonstrate importance of strategic conservation planning for birds. Biol. Conserv. 165, 104–114 (2013). 30. Cox, W. A., Tompson, F. R. III, Root, B. & Faaborg, J. Declining brownheaded cowbird (Molothrus ater) populations are associated with landscapespecifc reductions in brood parasitism and increases in songbird productivity. PLoS One 7, e47591 (2012). 31. Millar, R. J. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nat. Geosci. 10, 741–747 (2017).