Problem Set 1

Using the information provided below (i.e., the major sections of a hypothetical manuscript being submitted for publication), write the first page(s) of a manuscript being submitted to the

Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) for publication up through but not including the introduction (i.e., title, abstract, and any other information that a manuscript would require up to the Introduction). Follow JWM guidelines!

Introduction

A species of special concern, willets (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus; Figure 1) have shown 0.3-1.5% population declines per year throughout much of Connecticut for several decades. While these declines appear to be related to loss and degradation of marsh habitats, little quantitative information exists on willet-habitat relationships in such areas, limiting conservation efforts. Thus, our objective was to quantify the effects of marsh habitat structure on willet distribution in Connecticut marshes. During April-September, 2003 and 2004, we conducted point counts, callback surveys, and vegetation measurements, in 39 Connecticut marshes. To understand the importance of habitat structure to willet distribution, we compared

(1) willet use of major habitats (e.g., common reed [Phragmites australis]-dominated and cordgrass meadow) and structural differences between these habitats (i.e., vegetation height and plant species richness) and (2) habitat variables (e.g., vegetation height and coverage of Spartina alterniflora and Phragmites australis, ditches, open water, mudflat, and flotsam) between locations where willets were and were not documented.

Methods Forty marshes were selected for study based on previous work conducted in Connecticut.

However, willet surveys were not completed at one marsh due to size constraints. Marshes were salt and brackish, ranged in size from 2 to 307 ha, and spanned the entire Connecticut coast.

To document willet use (i.e., number of birds counted at a location) and distribution, we conducted point counts and playback surveys at 97 locations distributed across the 39 study marshes during 2003 and 2004 (i.e., 50-m radius point counts randomly located within each marsh, >200 m apart, and stratified by major vegetation type; 10 min listening and observation period, followed by 7 minutes of broadcasting tape recorded calls). The number of locations sampled in each marsh was based on its size (i.e., the number of points that were >200 m apart and >75 m from the marsh-upland edge). Surveys were conducted on 3 occasions between April and September on each marsh. At each count/survey location, 2 perpendicular, 50 m, randomly- oriented line transects that originated at the location were sampled to estimate the percent cover of different plant species, species richness, plant height, and amount of major habitat types and other habitat variables (Tables 1, 2, and 3).

ANOVA with marsh as a blocking factor was used to examine differences in willet use among major habitats. ANOVA (individual variables) with marsh as a blocking factor and discriminant function analysis (DFA; all variables simultaneously) were used to compare habitat variables between locations where willets were and were not documented. For the DFA, initial variable reduction methods were employed, the model was fit using a stepwise forward procedure, and the relative importance of each variable in the final model was assessed by examining standardized canonical discriminant functions (SCDF). If data failed to meet the assumptions of a test, they were rank-transformed prior to analysis. All tests were considered significant at P ≤ 0.10. Results

Willet use differed among major habitats (short-grass meadow > cordgrass meadow > brackish mixture = cattail = common reed). Maximum vegetation height (common reed = cattail

> brackish mixture > cordgrass meadow = short-grass meadow), mean vegetation height

(common reed > cattail > brackish mixture > short-grass meadow = cordgrass meadow), and plant species richness (Brackish mixture > short-grass meadow = cattail = common reed = cordgrass meadow) also differed among major habitats (Table 2).

Compared with locations where they were not documented, sites used by willets had shorter average and maximum vegetation height, more saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow hay, and spike grass, and less cattail, common reed, and saltmarsh bulrush (Table 3). However, the combination, in order of importance, of average vegetation height (SCDF = 0.596), and saltmeadow hay (SCDF = -0.449), spike grass (SCDF = 0.351), and saltmarsh bulrush (SCDF =

-0.272) cover best explained differences between locations (72% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.632; P ≤ 0.001).

Discussion

Our data suggest that willets used short-grass meadow, cordgrass meadow, and brackish mixture habitats more than common reed and cattail-dominated habitats, possibly because they had shorter vegetation and often contained more diverse plant communities. Plants of particular importance to willets in these salt and brackish marshes were saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow hay, and spike grass. Our results are contrary to Benoit and Askins (2002; Wilson Bulletin

114:314-323), who found no relationship between willet abundance and short-grass meadow cover in Connecticut, but similar to Benoit and Askins (1999; Wetlands 19:194-208), who found willets only used areas of saltmarsh cordgrass and saltmeadow hay and were not found in areas of common reed.

Management Implications

To improve salt and brackish marshes for willets, management should focus on the creation and maintenance of short-grass meadow, cordgrass meadow, and brackish mixtures, while working to remove common reed and cattail-dominated areas. Within these habitats, management should provide a mixture of saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow hay, and spike grass.

Acknowledgements

Funding and support for this project were provided by the University of Florida and the

Long Island Sound Program, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Literature Cited Table 1. Major marsh habitats used by willets in Connecticut, 2003-2004. Type Description Common reed Phragmites australis >50% coverage Cattail Typha latifolia >30% coverage, with no other single species >30% coverage Cordgrass meadow S. alterniflora ≥50% coverage Short-grass meadow Spartina patens, S. Alterniflora, Distichlis spicata, and Juncus gerardi combined comprise >50% coverage, with no species comprising ≥50% coverage Brackish mixture Mixtures and coverage's of species not described above (i.e., other)

Table 2. Differences in willet use, mean and maximum vegetation height, and plant species richness (mean ± SE) between major marsh habitats of Connecticut, 2003- 2004. Major Habitats Common Cordgrass Short-grass Brackish Variable Reed Cattail Meadow Meadow Mixture P Willet use 0.0 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.3 1.7 ± 0.4 3.7 ± 0.5 0.5 ± 0.5 ≤0.001 (No. of ind.) Mean vegetation 2.4 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.0 1.1 ± 0.1 ≤0.001 height (cm) 2.8 ± 0.1 2.6 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.2 ≤0.001 Maximum vegetation height (cm) 3.4 ± 0.5 4.4 ± 1.0 2.7 ± 0.2 5.0 ± 0.4 8.3 ± 1.1 ≤0.001 Plant species richness (No. of species) Table 3. Differences in habitat variables (mean ± SE) between locations where willets were and were not documented in Connecticut marshes, 2003-2004. Willets Not Variable Documented Documented P Mean vegetation height (cm) 0.6 ± 0.0 1.5 ± 0.1 ≤0.001 Maximum vegetation height (cm) 1.2 ± 0.1 2.1 ± 0.1 ≤0.001 Plant species richness (No. of species) 4.5 ± 0.4 4.4 ± 0.5 0.994 Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; %) 35.1 ± 4.5 22.4 ± 4.9 0.018 Saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens; %) 35.6 ± 4.3 10.0 ± 2.4 ≤0.001 Cattail (Typha latifolia; %) 3.8 ± 2.3 11.4 ± 3.4 0.018 Common reed (Phragmites australis; %) 1.9 ± 0.7 27.2 ± 5.3 ≤0.001 Spike grass (Distichlis spicata; %) 8.8 ± 2.2 2.9 ± 1.0 0.004 Saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus; %) 0.1 ± 0.1 2.6 ± 1.2 0.061 Other plant species (%) 8.1 ± 1.8 12.3 ± 2.7 0.118 Ditch (%) 2.8 ± 0.7 2.1 ± 0.5 0.374 Water (%) 1.0 ± 0.4 1.4 ± 0.4 0.527 Mud (%) 2.0 ± 0.6 3.3 ± 1.3 0.302 Flotsum (%) 1.0 ± 0.5 4.3 ± 1.7 0.251