INCIDENTAL TAKE and POPULATION DYNAMICS of NESTING BIRDS in a RED PINE (Pinus Resinosa) PLANTATION in SOUTHERN ONTARIO UNDER SINGLE-TREE SELECTION HARVESTING
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INCIDENTAL TAKE AND POPULATION DYNAMICS OF NESTING BIRDS IN A RED PINE (Pinus resinosa) PLANTATION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO UNDER SINGLE-TREE SELECTION HARVESTING A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in the Faculty of Arts and Science TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario, Canada © Copyright by Ian R. Fife 2015 Environmental and Life Sciences Graduate M.Sc. Program May 2015 ii Abstract INCIDENTAL TAKE AND POPULATION DYNAMICS OF NESTING BIRDS IN A RED PINE (Pinus resinosa) PLANTATION UNDER SINGLE-TREE SELECTION HARVESTING Ian R. Fife I determined the direct influence of single-tree selection harvesting on the daily nest survival rates and nest success of 5 focal bird species within a monotypic red pine (Pinus resinosa) plantation on the western edge of the Oak Ridges Moraine in southern Ontario, Canada. I located and monitored 290 nests during the 2012 and 2013 breeding season. I used the logistic-exposure method to evaluate the daily nest survival rates of American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens), Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus), and Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus). Only five nests were destroyed as a result of forestry activity over the study period. Neither daily nest survival rates nor nest success of these focal species were substantially affected by single-tree selection harvesting. I also monitored the impact of single-tree selection harvesting on the density and territory size of 4 of 5 focal species. Ovenbird had a significantly smaller territory size but decreased density in the harvested areas. Although not significant, Eastern Wood-pewee and Red-eyed Vireo tended to have higher densities and larger territory sizes in harvested areas, whereas Rose-breasted Grosbeak showed a mixed effect as density was higher while territory size was smaller. Single-tree selection produces minor to moderate disturbance that takes place locally over a short period of time. As a result, nests that are indirectly disturbed by nearby harvesting, felling trees and mechanical operations and are not destroyed remain and adults do not appear to abandon eggs or young from the disturbance. Habitat alteration from harvesting of the general forest structure and especially the forest floor must be minimized in order to conserve forest bird species diversity. Further research examining incidental take using various intensities of single- tree selection harvesting would provide important insight into maintaining avian and forest diversity by means of forest management. iii Keywords: incidental take, forest management, single-tree selection harvesting, nest success, daily nest survival, logistic-exposure, density, territory size, Red Pine, monotypical forest, Northumberland County Forest, American Robin, Eastern Wood- pewee, Ovenbird, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Red-eyed Vireo. iv Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Erica Nol for her direction and her support throughout my undergraduate and graduate career and especially during the completion of this thesis. I am grateful for the input from my committee members, Drs. Ken Abraham and Jeff Bowman whom provided very thoughtful and insightful comments towards the completion of this thesis. Your input during meetings and comments on my thesis pushed and challenged me to become a better student, writer and researcher. My gratitude is also highly expressed to Ben Walters for his statistical help and insight into forest management. Also, thanks are given to Dr. Samuel Haché for comments and insight on my thesis regarding landbird ecology and harvesting practices. I am also grateful for the field staff who helped during the 2012 and 2013 field season. Without their assistance I could not have completed this thesis. Thank you to David Geale, Mike Stefanuk, Devin Turner, and Walter Wehtje for every bit of help during my field seasons. A very special thank you to Steven Van Drunen, his expertise in nest searching was inspiring and always motivated me to find more nests. This study also could not be financially possible without the funding from Northumberland County and Trent University. Furthermore, to all the amazing friends I have met along this path; especially K. Chan and A. Marques. You helped me keep my sanity…most of the time. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and support that was greatly needed throughout the completion of my thesis. Thank you Mom, Joanne, Michelle and Gary. Last but not least, thank you Jennifer Vincent for continued support throughout my endeavors. v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................iii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: General Introduction: Canadian Policy on Incidental Take of Migratory Birds within the Forestry Industry ........................................................................................................ 1 The Legal Framework for Incidental Take ..................................................................... 1 Issues Associated with Applying the MBR to Forestry Operations ............................... 3 Canada’s Enforcement of Incidental Take Under the MBCA ........................................ 6 Present – Future implications of non-compliance with the MBCA .............................. 9 Incidental Take and Indirect Measures of Bird Loss Through Single-tree Selection Harvesting ................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2: Incidental Take of Birds from Single-tree Selection Harvesting in a Southern Ontario Red Pine (Pinus resinosa) Plantation .............................................................................. 15 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 15 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 16 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 19 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 19 Nest Searching ............................................................................................................. 20 Nest Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 21 Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................................... 21 RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 22 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 3: Effects of Single-tree Selection on Density and Territory Size of 4 Bird Species in a Southern Ontario Red Pine (Pinus resinosa) Plantation ................................................. 41 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 41 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 42 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 44 Study Site ..................................................................................................................... 44 Territory Mapping ....................................................................................................... 46 Density and Territory Size ........................................................................................ 48 Habitat Measurements ............................................................................................ 49 RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 50 vi DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 54 Eastern Wood-pewee density and territory size ......................................................... 55 Ovenbird density and territory size ............................................................................. 56 Rose-breasted Grosbeak density and territory size ..................................................... 58 Red-eyed Vireo density and territory size.................................................................... 59 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 61 CHAPTER 4: General Discussion .....................................................................................