Revisiting the Historic Distribution and Habitats of the Whooping Crane Jane E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center US Geological Survey 2019 Revisiting the Historic Distribution and Habitats of the Whooping Crane Jane E. Austin Matthew A. Hayes Jeb A. Barzen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. CHAPTER 3 Revisiting the Historic Distribution and Habitats of the Whooping Crane Jane E. Austin*, Matthew A. Hayes**, Jeb A. Barzen** *U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, United States **International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, WI, United States INTRODUCTION habitat (Prince, 1997). Many endangered species persist only on the periphery of their historic Understanding the historic range and habitats range because of habitat loss or modification in of an endangered species can assist in conserva- their core range (Channell and Lomolino, 2000), tion and reintroduction efforts for that species. which can bias our understanding of the spe- Individuals reintroduced into a species’ historic cies’ habitat preferences. Further, habitat models core range have a higher survival rate compared based on locations where species persist neces- to individuals introduced near the periphery or sarily emphasize local conditions rather than outside the historic range (Falk and Olwell, 1992; historical conditions ( Kuemmerle et al., 2011). Griffith et al., 1989). Individuals on the periph- For example, habitat models for the European ery of a species’ range tend to occupy less favor- bison (Bison bonasus) suggested it was a wood- able habitats and have lower and more variable land species, but assessment of the bison’s densities than those near the core of their range historic range indicated it preferred mosaic- (Brown, 1984; Brown et al., 1995, 1996). Such type landscapes and had a more eastern and conclusions, however, presume that historic northern distribution than previously reported habitats have not changed since a species was (Kuemmerle et al., 2011, 2012). Hence, accurate extirpated from core areas – a difficult assump- determination of the historic range and habitat tion for many areas, and particularly for wetland conditions for endangered species can improve Whooping Cranes: Biology and Conservation http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803555-9.00003-7 25 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc. 26 3. REVISITING THE HISTORIC DISTRIBUTION AND HABITATS OF THE WHOOPING CRANE our understanding of their ecology and assist habitat use descriptions, taking advantage of in conservation and reintroduction efforts. newly discovered information, new tools such Examining the historic range from an ecological as geographic information systems (GIS), and perspective can also help identify where appro- contemporary knowledge of wetland and spe- priate habitat still exists that could sustain a cies ecology. We review the historic range, population. adjust the ecological niche for Whooping Cranes The main source of information on the his- described by Allen by linking historic habitat use toric distribution of Whooping Cranes is a patterns to the life history of Whooping Cranes monograph, The Whooping Crane, a detailed (most of which was developed after Allen’s pub- report by Allen (1952). Allen collected and ana- lication), and discuss how our analysis could lyzed all available information about Whooping help to direct current and future reintroduction Cranes, including historic observations. From efforts. Finally, we hypothesize that the ecologi- these observations, Allen constructed a historic cal niche for Whooping Cranes is defined pri- Whooping Crane distribution map (Allen, 1952, marily by wetland productivity, which meets p. 2) to illustrate historic breeding and winter- three primary needs in the annual cycle: rapid ing distribution and habitat use. Allen’s maps chick growth in spring and summer, habitat for and information have been utilized by many molting birds in summer, and acquisition of sources since their initial publication (e.g., large energy reserves in winter. We focus our Doughty, 1989; Meine and Archibald, 1996; results and discussion on breeding, summering, Walkinshaw, 1973), including the International and wintering records; we do not consider habi- Whooping Crane Recovery Plan (Canadian tat use during migration. Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice, 2005), and Allen’s report remains a cru- cial source for Whooping Crane biology today. METHODS However, it has never been updated and ques- tions remain about some areas identified by All location records contained in The Whooping Allen. For example, when comparing recorded Crane (Allen 1952, pp. 51–64), as well as records observations and the historical principal range published after that document was published, map in Allen (1952, p. 2), many observations were entered into a tabular database (available listed are not included in the map (e.g., southern on USGS ScienceBase; doi:10.5066/F7QZ282R). Michigan), and some observations indicated on We used online search tools to find observations the map are not found in the table (Allen 1952, of Whooping Cranes in the literature published pp. 51–64). Also, some areas encompassed by after 1952; some records were also found in early the former breeding (e.g., northern Illinois) or publications that are now available electroni- wintering ranges that Allen described do not cally that may not have been available to Allen. appear to be supported by his tabular data. We used only observations up to 1941, the low Given the influence ofAllen’s (1952) report point of 15 or 16 Whooping Cranes in the AWBP in planning reintroduction efforts and the need (Allen, 1952), to determine their historic distri- to manage for a growing Aransas-Wood Buffalo bution. Thus, our evaluation of Allen’s work was Population (AWBP), Allen’s original analyses constrained to the period before the intensifica- deserved a review. In this chapter, we update tion of agricultural practices that occurred after Allen’s work with records found subsequent the 1940s, but encompassed the years of rapid to the publication of The Whooping Crane, and settlement and cropland expansion across the evaluate the accuracy of Allen’s range maps and Great Plains during the 1870s–1930 (Waisanen RESULTS 27 and Bliss, 2002). Records were organized by or unknown (biome = 0), we assigned the loca- date, location (place, city, county, state, country, tion to the nearest adjacent biome and ecoregion. and latitude/longitude), type of record (nesting, We also replicated the hand-drawn map ranges observation, specimen, or captured bird), and from Allen (1952, pp. 2, 19) in the GIS to the best life-history stage (breeding, summering, migrat- of our ability, given uncertainty about the map ing, or wintering). We categorized observations projection used by Allen. or specimens of a nest, eggs, or flightless chick as breeding; other observations between mid-May and 30 August were categorized as summering. RESULTS For observations or specimens that included a year but no date, we categorized life-history Updating Allen’s Historic Distribution stage as unknown. We included observer iden- tity, if known, source for each record, and, for We compiled a total of 884 records from birds that were killed or collected, current loca- Allen (1952), dating from 1722 to 1941: 25 (2.8%) tion of existing specimens. Some records lacked records preceded 1850, 390 (44.1%) occurred information on multiple aspects (e.g., observer from 1850 to 1899, 221 (25.0%) from 1900 to 1919, name, specific location, season) and, without and 201 (22.7%) from 1920 to 1941; 47 (5.3%) had other supporting information, were included no known date specified. We added 74 records in the database but not included in analyses. to those listed in Allen (1952): 20 breeding loca- Records were exported to a GIS, ArcMap10 tions (total 87), 21 summering locations (total (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA), and sorted by life- 169), 18 migrating locations (total 367), 5 winter- history stage and season. ing locations (total 121), and 10 unknown life- Landscape features and patterns of habitat history stages (total 140) (Table 3.1; Appendix). use were derived by overlaying locations and The additional records were from 28 published range polygons on the World Wildlife Fund sources, including eight that had been published (WWF) terrestrial biomes and ecoregions (Abell before 1952 but either may not have been avail- et al., 2008). These data layers were selected able to Allen or we felt deserved to be reinter- because of their use of a comprehensive set preted. Among the most striking additions were of characteristics at the ecoregion level (wet- the 13 breeding records, 14 summering records, lands, climate, topography, and vegetation). and 7 migration records reported for Saskatch- Additional information was obtained from ewan by Hjertaas (1994) and 4 breeding records two other ecoregion classification systems: the in southern Texas (Oberholser, 1938,