Wright State University CORE Scholar
Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
2017
Breeding Bird and Bat Activity Surveys at Dairymen's Inc.
Mandy M. Salminen Wright State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all
Part of the Biology Commons
Repository Citation Salminen, Mandy M., "Breeding Bird and Bat Activity Surveys at Dairymen's Inc." (2017). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 1853. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1853
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BREEDING BIRD AND BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS AT DAIRYMEN’S INC.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
By
MANDY M. SALMINEN B.S., Miami University, 2011
2017 Wright State University
WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
August 25, 2017
I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Mandy M. Salminen ENTITLED Breeding bird and bat activity surveys at Dairymen’s Inc. BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science.
______Thomas Rooney, Ph.D. Thesis Director
______David Goldstein, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Biological Sciences
Committee on Final Examination
______Thomas Rooney, Ph.D.
______Jeffrey Peters, Ph.D.
______Volker Bahn, Ph.D.
______Robert E. W. Fyffe, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
ABSTRACT
Salminen, Mandy M. M.S. Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, 2017. Breeding bird and bat activity surveys at Dairymen’s Inc.
The purpose of this study is to conduct baseline inventories of breeding birds and bat activity for the Dairymen’s Inc. property. In addition, I compared the breeding bird communities of two habitats, black ash swamp and alder thickets. I conducted line transects and point counts to collect data on the breeding birds. For bat activity levels, I conducted acoustic point counts on the Dairymen’s lakes. The data from this study, was used to predict the outcome of the white-nose syndrome and emerald ash borer becoming part of the landscape. The inventory data will be used to create a baseline for management practices and to monitor effects of environmental threats.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION……………………………….………..……………………….....…1
Background…………………………………………….………………..…...……2
Dairymen’s Historic Land Use.…………………..… .….……………………..…4
Habitats…………………………………………..………………….….…………8
Wildlife…………………..………………………………………………………18
II. SURVEY METHODOLOGIES…….…………………………..………..…….….….20
Breeding Bird Inventory…………………………………….…………...………20
Birds of Alder Thicket and Black Ash Swamp…………………..………………26
Index of Bat Activity………………………………………………………….…32
Data Analysis………………………….…………………………………………35
III. RESULTS……………………………….………….………………………..………41
Breeding Bird Inventory……………….……………….…………………..……41
Birds of Alder Thicket and Black Ash Swamp………………………………….54
Index of Bat Activity………………………………………………………….…59
IV. DISCUSSION………………..………………………………………………..……..60
Breeding Bird Inventory…………………………………….……………...……60
Birds of Alder Thicket and Black Ash Swamp………………………………….64
Index of Bat Activity……………………………………………………….……67
Future Studies and Conclusion………………….……………………………….70
iv V. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….…73
v LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Dairymen’s Habitats in 1925……….…………….……………………..……………...5
2. History of Dairymen’s Land Acquisitions…..……….……………….………………...6
3. Northern Hardwoods Habitat Type…………………………………………..………..11
4. Open Water Habitat Type…………………………………………………..…………12
5. White Birch Habitat Type………………………………………………..……………13
6. Aspen Habitat Type……………………………….….………………..……………...14
7. Hemlock-hardwood Habitat Type…………………………….…..…………….……..15
8. Red Pine Habitat Type………………………………..…………..…………….……..16
9. Old Field Habitat Type…………….………………………………..……….………..17
10. Sedge Meadow Habitat Type…………………..….…………………………………18
11. Map of Habitat Types at Dairymen’s………….…………….……………….………22
12. Map of Survey Transects Through Habitat Types at Dairymen’s…………...………23
13. Map of Geographical Sections at Dairymen’s…………………………….…………24
14. Map of Surveyed Sections at Dairymen’s………………………..……….…………25
15. Black Ash Swamp Habitat Type…………………………….…………..…..….……27
16. Alder Thicket Habitat Type…………………………………….……………………28
17. Inside Alder Thicket Habitat Type…………………….……………….……………29
18. Black Ash Swamp Canopy…………………………….…………………………….30
19. Map of Bat Survey Sites…………………………….………….……………………34
vi 20. Map of Broad Habitat Types at Dairymen’s………………………………..………..37
21. Map of Survey Transects Through Broad Habitat Types at Dairymen’s.…………...38
22. Rarefaction Curve of the Avian Species Found on the Property…………………….44
23. Rarefaction Curves of Avian Diet Guilds for the Property……………….………….47
24. Rarefaction Curves of Avian Foraging Guilds for the Property……………………..48
25.Rarefaction Curves of Avian Nest Type Guilds for the Property………………….…49
26.Rarefaction Curves of Avian Nesting Location Guilds for the Property…………..…50
27. Box Plots of Avian Diet Guilds for the Property…………………………….………51
28. Box Plots of Avian Foraging Guilds for the Property………………..…….………..52
29. Box Plots of Avian Nest Type Guilds for the Property……………………………...53
30. Box Plots of Avian Nesting Location Guilds for the Property………………………54
31. Rarefaction Curves of Black Ash and Alder Thicket Avian Communities………….56
32. Bar Graphs of Black Ash and Alder Thicket Diet Guilds…………………..……….57
33. Bar Graphs of Black Ash and Alder Thicket Foraging Guilds……………….……...57
34. Bar Graphs of Black Ash and Alder Thicket Nest Type Guilds…………………..…58
35. Bar Graphs of Black Ash and Alder Thicket Nest Location Guilds…………………58
36. Point Graph of Bat Passes per Lake…………………………….……………...….…59
vii LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Dairymen’s Habitat Type Descriptions……………………………………………...…9
2. Broad Habitat Constrained Jaccard Similarity……………………………..…………45
3. Section Constrained Jaccard Similarity……………………………….………………46
viii LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE
A. Breeding Bird Inventory………………………………………….….………………81
B. Black Ash Swamp and Alder Thicket Inventory……………………………….……85
ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Rooney, and my committee members, Dr.
Peters, Dr. Bahn for their guidance, advice, and support. I would especially like to thank
Dr. Rooney for his mentoring and both academic and career guidance. My thanks to Dr.
Peters and Dr. Bahn for teaching me the skills to become a better and more confident birder. I would like to thank Dr. Benzdecny, who taught me the skills for spatial analyzing and to look at the world in a different way. Dairymen’s Inc. and its members, especially George Tzanetopoulos and Tim Hanson for their support and welcoming attitude. I want to thank my family and friends for all of their support. To Lynsey
Ellingwood, for the many read throughs she endured. Lastly, I would like to thank Jenn
Bauer, for her edits upon edits, and her constant support and faith in me.
x I. INTRODUCTION
Dairymen’s Inc., hereafter referred to as Dairymen's, implemented a land stewardship management plan in 2009. The stated goals of this plan were to preserve the land’s scenic beauty while using its natural resources in a responsible manner (Rooney,
2009a). Dairymen’s has little spatially documented information on the flora and fauna.
The aim of this study was to compile two inventories for the property. I documented breeding bird species composition and distribution and I documented insectivorous bat activity levels. This inventory data will be used to create a baseline for ongoing management practices and to monitor effects of environmental threats. This project will improve future researchers' and managers' ability to answer temporal and spatial questions about the effectiveness of land management.
The Dairymen’s Inc. property is located in Vilas County in northern Wisconsin
(46° 9’ N, 89°51’ W). This area has a continental climate and is considered part of the
Northern Highland region. The region contains glacial deposits from the Pleistocene, mainly moraines and out wash plains (Rooney, 2009b). This property is comprised of 16 major habitat types and contains 7 oligotrophic lakes. The property is used by its members for low impact recreation, such as hiking, cross country skiing, snow mobile riding, recreational fishing, and recreational water activities. Timber harvest occurs on approximately 35% of the forest, and follows principles of ecoforestry (Rooney, 2009a).
The purpose of this study is to conduct baseline inventories of surrogate taxa
(birds; Gregory & Strien 2010) and indicator taxa (bats; Jones, et al. 2009; Staahlschmidt,
1 2012). These data will be used in the future to evaluate the effectiveness of Dairymen’s stewardship plan. To accomplish this, I compiled two inventories for Dairymen’s. One inventory documented the abundance of breeding bird species in different habitats. The other inventory provided an index of bat abundance based on activity levels. This data enabled me to examine the distribution of bird species composition among the habitats and to create a baseline for future monitoring of bat populations before widespread losses due to the invasive fungal infection, white-nose syndrome (Minnis & Lindner, 2013).
In addition to the inventories, I compared the avian communities of black ash swamp and alder thicket. Black ash swamps are threatened by the invasive emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). These swamps could be replaced by alder thickets as the canopy trees die. By comparing bird assemblages between habitats, I can predict the response of avian assemblages to emerald ash borer invasion. Because the two communities have different vertical structures, with black ash being open while ash thickets are dense, I predict a difference in species composition.
Background
Dairymen’s property is located close to the Michigan-Wisconsin border. During the pre-settlement era, much of the land was covered by old growth conifer and deciduous forests. Conifers include red and white pine (Pinus resinosa and Pinus strobus), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Deciduous species included sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) (Rooney & Waller,
2008; Curtis, 1956; Howe et al., 1996). Howe et al. (1996) state that 90% of the western
2 Great Lakes states were covered by old growth forest, defined as containing trees 120 years old or older. Pioneer species, such as quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) were rare in the landscape (Fig. 1). Conifer forests had fires in 100-400 year intervals, while the deciduous forests experienced fires in intervals of 1000 years or longer (Heinselman, 1973).
After the European settlement, there was a large demand for timber. Logging of the northern forests eliminated most of the old growth forests. This logging could be divided into three phases, from 1850-1920 (Curtis, 1956). In the first phase, loggers cut down species that had high commercial value, such as red and white pine. In the second and third phases, forests were clear-cut. After the cutover, large amounts of leftover forest debris often dried out and caught fire.
Farming also occurred in the cutover forests. The soils in northern Wisconsin are low in fertility and the growing season is short. These factors made this area a poor candidate for agriculture; instead, people raised livestock, often grazing them in the remaining forests. Grazing put more pressure on the remaining forest species, promoting species that grew quickly and were graze tolerant (Curtis, 1956).
These activities in the forest promoted a more homogeneous composition while also favoring early successional species such as aspen and paper birch (Rooney & Waller,
2008; Curtis, 1956; Howe et al., 1996). Between the mid-1800s to the 1990s, aspen dominance increased overall in northern Wisconsin. Some forests consisted of > 80% aspen (Rooney & Waller, 2008).
3 Throughout the region, timber harvesting is a common use of land. However, the volume and intensity of harvesting is much lower than it was during the great cutover.
Nevertheless, habitat fragmentation and degradation still occur. Today’s threat to northern Wisconsin’s forest comes from urban sprawl. Forests are being cleared to make room for vacation homes and developments to support the influx of people coming to enjoy the wilderness (Rooney & Waller, 2008). Like most of the United States, northern
Wisconsin’s natural habitats are under the constant threat of becoming more fragmented and isolated.
Dairymen’s Historic Land Use
Dairymen's was founded in 1924 and their first property purchase was in 1925.
This property was 600 ha between Wolf and Home Lake. The 600 ha was composed of old growth red and white pine that had survived through the logging era. In 1927, the organization built a few more cabins and converted a cow pasture into a golf course, but much of the property remained undeveloped. Between 1925 and 1949, Dairymen’s Inc. made a few small land purchases. In 1949, they acquired 1800 ha from Brooks and Ross
Lumber Company (Fig. 2). While under management of the lumber company, the land was used primarily for timber. The logging practices degraded the 1800 ha into poor quality habitat. In the 1960s, Dairymen’s Inc. attempted to restore this land. Between
1960 and 1968, over 300,000 trees were planted (Streyckmans, 1968).
4
Fig. 1 – Habitats found at Dairymen’s at the time of first purchase; adapted from Streyckmans (1968).
5
Fig. 2 – History of Dairymen’s land acquisitions; adapted from Streyckmans (1968).
In the 1980s, Dairymen’s Inc. greatly increased logging activities. Consequently, many members were upset by the impact on the forest. In 2000s, Dairymen’s
6 commissioned a resource stewardship plan, which was implemented in 2009. It has four major purposes: identifying the Dairymen's goals for the future of the land, describing the property's habitats, assessing the current condition of the property, and developing appropriate management actions needed to reach the Dairymen's goals. The Dairymen's goal for this management plan is to preserve the scenic beauty of the property while conserving the natural resources. With the member's chosen goal, the management plan uses the following to nominate two forest types for timber harvest: erosion hazards, potential soil damage from logging equipment, conservation opportunities, and habitat and wildlife surveys. The management plan for the remaining and special concern habitat types restrict encroachment and preserve these habitats with little to no management action, pending no unforeseen circumstances (Rooney, 2009a).
Under this management plan, the Dairymen’s property is used for low impact recreation activities. These activities include hiking, biking, snowmobiling, water recreation, cross country skiing, and fishing. Hunting is excluded from the property.
Little development is found apart from small portions of the Home and Wolf Lake shorelines. Most of the lake shorelines on the property are undeveloped.
The management plan recommends biodiversity surveys to evaluate whether management is consistent with conservation goals. Floristic and zoogeographic inventories include lists of species, their relative abundance, and where they can be found on the property. Species inventories can be used to monitor ecological conditions over time (Rooney et al., 2010; Gregory & Strien, 2010; Canterbury et al., 2000; Herkert,
7 1995; Ambuel & Temple, 1982; Biddy, 2004). At present there are only comprehensive inventories of tree species and game fish populations. This study adds to these data with an inventory of the breeding bird community and a population index for bats.
Habitats
There are 16 major habitat types found on the Dairymen’s Inc. property. These
16 habitat types are: alder thickets, black spruce swamps, bracken grassland, warm water streams, cold or cool water streams, emergent aquatics, ephemeral ponds, northern hardwood swamps, northern mesic forest, open bog, northern wet mesic forest, mesic cedar forest, muskeg, northern dry mesic forest, sedge meadow, and poor fen. For this study, habitat types were classified based on dominant tree species or other dominant plant species if there was no dominant tree species. These habitat types are described in
Table 1. The northern mesic forest, or for this study, northern hardwood habitat is the dominant terrestrial habitat, covering roughly 2/3 of the property. I also used the developed, old field, and the golf course portions of the property as habitat types due to their altered states. In addition, this study uses the term sedge meadow complex to describe one of the sections surveyed. The sedge meadow complex, which is found in the Northwest section of the property, is comprised of sedge meadow and muskeg habitat types.
8 Table 1 – Descriptions of the surveyed habitat types at Dairymen’s.
Habitat Type Description of Habitat
Northern This habitat is dominated by sugar maple, with basswood, ash, and yellow birch interspersed. Soils Hardwoods are typically moist and either sandy loam, loamy sand, or silt. See Fig. 3.
This habitat type is similar to open bogs but with scattered and stunted black spruce and tamarack Muskeg trees. The soils are typically acidic and are wet for the entire growing season. This habitat type is very fragile and unique due to its slow growth. These areas are dominated by deciduous hardwood trees, such as black ash, red maple, and yellow Swamp birch. They can be found in depressions within upland deciduous forests. Soils are typically peat or Hardwoods muck that have poor drainage. This habitats soils are saturated for most, to all, of the growing season. This habitat type consists of the drainage lakes on the property. Throughout the year, they have Open Water standing water with aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation. Some of the lakes have islands of vegetation within the borders of the shoreline. See Fig. 4. This habitat type contains balsam fir and white spruce as the dominant tree species. They tend to grow in sandy loam, loam, or silt loam soils. This habitat may be an early successional habitat that Fir-Spruce leads to an ATM habitat with sugar maple, hemlock, and yellow birch as the dominant canopy species. These areas are usually found in wet to moist soils. This tree is an early successional plant. Later White Birch successions are dependent on the soils moisture content and the available nutrients at individual sites. See Fig. 5.
These habitats are considered coniferous bogs. Their soils are typically saturated throughout the Black Spruce growing season. Black Spruce trees have shallow roots and are susceptible to wind events.
This habitat type is usually found in moist to wet soils. This tree species is an early successional Aspen plant and prefers sites with recent disturbance. Later successions are dependent on moisture content of soil and amount of nutrients available at individual sites. See Fig. 6.
Hemlock- This habitat type is dominated by hemlock, sugar maple, and yellow birch. The soils of this habitat type tend to be sandy loam, loam, or silt loam soils. The soils are typically less nutrient rich than the Hardwood northern hardwood soils. See Fig. 7.
This habitat is a red pine plantation. There is very little undergrowth and typical ground layer is Red Pine grasses and sedges. The soil is typically sandy and dry. See Fig. 8.
Honey Suckle/ An area where a large stand of honey suckle once grew, but has been treated with an herbicide in 2012. This area now resembles a old field with the honeysuckle woody structures still standing. See Old Field Fig. 9. These habitats contain Red and White Pine as the dominant tree speices. This habitat type may be Red and White an early successional forest to TMC or AVVib and can later be dominated by either hemlock, red maple, sugar maple, and yellow birch or sugar maple, red maple, and red oak, depending on soil Pine type and moisture content. TMC typically have sandy loam, loamy sand, loam, or sand soils and are more moist and richer than the sandy loam or loamy sand soils of AVVib.
We did not have the data for these areas in the forest stand inventory (Rooney, 2009a). These areas Unverified were typically a type of wetland.
9 These areas contain constructed buildings, paved roads and sidewalks, docks, mowed grasses Developed typically used for lawns, with a few large trees interspersed. They would be classified as urbanized.
This area is the typical golf course landscape with a few stands of red pine interspersed between Golf Course holes.
Tamarack and This habitat type is similar to muskeg but the trees are not stunted. It is classified as a coniferous swamp. They typically have acidic soil and poor drainage. The soils are poor in nutrients. Most of Black Spruce the nutrients come from precipitation. They are found near or on drainages areas.
This habitat type was dominated by red oak with red maple and sugar maple interspresed. They Oak tended to be in drier, less nutrient rich soils than the Northern Hardwood habitat type.
This habitat type was dominated by White Pine and may have jack pine, white birch, white spruce, White Pine and balsam fir interspersed. This habitat type typically grows on loamy sand but can also be found on sand or sandy loam. The soils are well drained and have little moisture content. This habitat type is dominated by lowland conifers, such as white cedar and tamarack. The soils are peat or muck and range from being poor in nutrients and acidic, to rich and alkaline. Dominant Swamp Conifer trees are dependent on soil type. They are saturated for most of the growing season. They typically have many ferns as the ground cover. This habitat type is found in depressions and dominated by sedges and grasses; soils are typically peat or muck over mineral soils and poorly drain. They can hold standing water for most of the Sedge Meadow growing season. These habitats are associated with groundwater movement, drainage lake, river, and stream shores. Hummoncks and sedge mats, which are important to certain animal species, can be found in these habitats. See Fig. 10.
10
Fig. 3 – Northern hardwood habitat type found on the property.
11
Fig. 4 – Open water habitat type at Dairymen’s.
12
Fig. 5 – White birch habitat type at Dairymen’s.
13
Fig. 6 – Typical aspen stand found on the Dairymen’s property.
14
Fig. 7 – Typical hemlock-hardwood habitat type found on the Dairymen’s property.
15
Fig. 8 – The red pine habitat type at Dairymen’s.
16
Fig. 9 – Honey suckle or old field found on the Dairymen’s property. The old woody structures are dead honey suckle plants that were treated with an herbicide in 2012.
17 Fig. 10 – Typical sedge meadow habitat type found on the Dairymen’s property. This habitat type typically has clumped sedges and some open water.
Wildlife
The wildlife on this property is typical for a temperate Upper Midwest North
American region. Large mammals on the property include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bears (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), porcupines
(Erethizon dorsatum), fishers (Martes pennanti), and gray wolves (Canis lupus).
Wisconsin is in the temperate region and the forest land cover is mix of deciduous and conifer forests. Some of the common forest species across this region are red-eyed
18 vireo (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus), black-throated green warbler (Setophaga virens), chestnut-sided warbler
(Setophaga pensylvanica), and hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) (Howe et al. 1996).
Wisconsin is part of the Mississippi flyway. In the summer, many Neotropical migrants use northern Wisconsin as their breeding grounds.
The bat community of Wisconsin consists of eight species. All are considered endangered, threatened, or species of concern at the state level. Of these eight species, five of them are cave dwelling/hibernating bats: little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern pipistrelle or tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
(WiDNR, 2014). These species are most at risk from white-nose syndrome (Brook,
2011; Ford et al., 2011). The other three species, silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), are considered tree bats (WiDNR, 2014). Bats possess slow population growth, secondary to low birth rates (De Jong, 1983) and high habitat sensitivity (Jones et al. 2009; Fisher &
Wilkinson, 2005).
19 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Breeding Bird Inventory
Data collection for the breeding bird inventory occurred May 25 to June 26 2015 and was only conducted on fair weather days, i.e. no rain and light wind (roughly 8 km/h or less). Six surveys were carried out each week. Thirteen walking auditory/visual line transects were used to survey each of the twelve management sections and a sedge meadow complex (Fig. 11; Fig. 12). The twelve management sections (Fig. 13) were created for the purpose of managing forests on the property. These sections do not correspond to any biological features but are internally organized by forest stands. A stand is a group of trees which is distinctly different from adjacent communities and are similar to each other in species composition, structure, age, size class distribution and location. The sedge meadow complex consisted of sedge meadows and a muskeg and is within sections three and five. This complex was surveyed separately because it represents a unique habitat on the property (Fig. 14). Each section was surveyed twice
(in reverse order and direction) for a total of 26 surveys. Each transect used the existing trail system. The paths of each transect were chosen to maximize the number of habitats visited. These paths were based on the habitat maps created using ArcGIS 10.1 and the forest stand inventory (Rooney, 2009a).
Surveys started a half an hour before sunrise and continued for three hours, I walked at a slow pace (1.5-3 km/h) with frequent pauses to listen. I monitored my walking pace by tracking the time and my position on the map. I included the following
20 data for each record: species, habitat spotted in (Table 1), and whether the bird was identified by sight or sound. I determined habitat based on habitat maps and verified the type through observation. If an individual was heard then seen, it was recorded as heard.
If an individual was identified by the call and two individuals were sighted, one was recorded as heard and the other recorded as sighted. Flyovers, defined as an individual flying over the section but not landing, were recorded for inventory purposes but not included in the data analysis. I drew individuals only when they were close and I could not identify the song. I used pishing techniques to attract birds but this was kept to a minimum to prevent birds from becoming habituated to the sound and to reduce survey bias. These data were used to create a spatially explicit inventory and species lists of the bird communities for each section and surveyed habitats on the property.
21
Fig. 11 – Habitat types at Dairymen’s.
22
Fig. 12 – Thick white lines represent the location of survey transects for the avian inventory.
23
Fig. 13 – Geographical sections at Dairymen’s.
24
Fig. 14 – Surveyed sections at Dairymen’s.
25
Birds of alder thicket and black ash swamp
I further compared bird community composition between black ash swamp (Fig.
15) and alder thickets (Fig. 16). These stands are fairly small and are interspersed throughout the property. Alder thickets are mainly concentrated around sources of water, such as lakes, streams, and wetlands. These stands were dominated by speckled alder
(Alnus incana), which create complex vertical structures (Fig. 17; Eggers and Reed,
1997) and can shade out many tree species, leaving this shrub as the dominant plant.
This habitat is typically small and linear and usually considered part of a larger habitat
(Hoffman, 1989).
Black ash (Fraxinus nigra), is the dominant species in hardwood swamps (Eggers
& Reed, 2014; Rooney, 2009a). This habitat tends to be found with soils that are saturated most of the year and typically has standing water (Eggers & Reed, 2014;
Rooney, 2009a; Shaw & Fredine, 1971). The understory of the black ash swamp on the
Dairymen’s property was sparse but mostly included sedges, alder, and occasionally white cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Black ash swamps are typically more open and have standing water for most of or the entire growing season (Fig. 18).
26
Fig. 15 – Black ash swamp surveyed on the Dairymen’s property. Note the lack of vertical structure found in the stand. This openness was typical across black ash swamp surveyed on Dairymen’s.
27
Fig. 16 – Alder thickets surveyed on the Dairymen’s property. Note the amount of vertical structure. This complexity of vertical structure was typical for alder thicket surveyed sites
28
Fig. 17 – Inside one of the alder thicket sites surveyed on the Dairymen’s property.
29
Fig. 18 – Canopy border between the sugar maple stand and black ash stand. The sugar maple stand is on the top and the black ash is on the bottom of the photo. Note the openness of the canopy in the black ash stand.
If emerald ash borer eliminates black ash from swamps, alder thicket will likely replace ash as the dominant vegetation (Palik et al., 2012). I examined bird community
30 composition of black ash swamps and alder thickets to determine how the loss of ash and its likely replacement by alder might affect bird communities.
To test for a difference in bird communities between black ash swamps and alder thickets, I used auditory/visual point count surveys. These surveys were conducted from
May 25, 2015 to June 26, 2015. One survey of each habitat type was conducted each week. Each survey included five points, each point in a different stand found on the property, and the surveys were conducted in intervals of 30 min at a single point. Most stands were fairly small (0.5 ha) and each point was located in the middle of it's stand in order to efficiently survey the entire stand. Of note, alder thickets lacked clear sight lines because of dense vertical structure. Thus, most identification was done by song in the alder. The surveys began a half hour before sunrise and continued until all five points were surveyed. Total duration of surveying lasted for approximately three hours. I performed surveys twice, the second survey in reverse order of the first survey. Each individual was recorded along with its distance with respect to the habitat. Three categories were used for distance: within, on the edge, and within 20 m but outside the habitat. The category of 'within 20 m but outside' was included in order to capture birds whose territory could possibly overlap the surveyed habitat. An individual was classified based on its closest proximity to the habitat. For example, if an individual was first spotted on the edge then it was inside the stand it was record as within the stand. I recorded the identity and abundance of each species observed, how they were identified, closest distance to the habitat, time started, time ended, sunrise, date and weather.
31 Index of Bat Activity
Bat activity surveys were conducted using a thirty minute point count of the boat docks on seven Dairymen’s lakes: Jenny, Sanford, Blue Gill, Flora, Bear, Wolf (three point counts), and Home (Fig. 19). Two surveys were conducted each evening, beginning at sunset and continuing for 60 min during fair weather. To examine the temporal differences, I use the terms early, describing the survey at sunset, and late, representing the survey starting 30 min after sunset. These surveys continued five days per week until each site was surveyed twice early and twice late. Lakes were paired with respect to distance to reduce the time needed to travel during the surveying time. I used a
Batbox Baton© (Steynina, UK), an ultrasound detector that can convert the bat echolocation calls into a lower frequency sound audible to the human ear, in order to count the number of passes. Pass counts were selected instead of mist netting, harp trapping, and direct hibernacula counts due to its efficiency (MacSwiney, Clarke, &
Racey, 2008). Furthermore, passive acoustic surveys have the additional benefits of not stress the animal, reduce the risk of spreading disease, and avoid difficulties of locating hibernacula or roosting sites. During the survey, the detector was placed on the dock facing the open water (and parallel with the dock). The number of passes were counted per 30 min to determine the bat activity level at each site. A pass is described as a series of calls that end three or more seconds before the next series of calls begins. Only single pass was recorded per series of calls unless more than one individual bat was visually observed simultaneously during the time of the pass. Surveys were conducted in the dark
32 without artificial light when possible. Three sites (Home Lake, Wolf Lake Developed 1, and Wolf Lake Developed 2) had artificial lighting that could not be controlled. Data recorded included: time started, time ended, time of sunset, weather, date, and number of passes for each point. Notes on insect activity, fish activity, number of boat passes, and moon phase were also recorded.
33
Fig. 19 – Bat survey sites at Dairymen’s. Green points represent sites with artificial lighting and red points represent sites without artificial lighting.
34 Data Analysis
I used R 3.2.1 (R Core Team, 2015) to analyze species richness, abundance, and pairwise Jaccard similarity in species composition among habitats. To estimate the predicted total number of species on the property, I calculated the Chao 1 index. I used the following formula:
2 Schao1 = Sobs + (F1 /[2*F2])
where Sobs is the total number of species found, F1 is the number of species observed once and F2 is the number of species observed twice. The Chao 1 index (Schao1) is the predicted number of species found in an area based on the species abundances found during the surveys. Only species observed during the surveys were used to calculation the Chao 1 index. In addition to the Chao 1 index, I created a rarefaction curve of the total species and individuals found during this study. The rarefaction curve of the entire property provides insight to survey efficacy.
To analyze the bird communities, I present transect survey data two ways: geographically (by section), and ecologically (by broad habitat). I combined similar habitat types to increase statistical power. Broad habitat types are as follows:
Evergreen wetlands: swamp conifers, sedge meadow, muskeg,
black spruce, and tamarack habitats.
Upland Conifers: fir-spruce, red pine, white pine, red and white
pine, regenerating forest, and hemlock habitats.
35 Upland Deciduous: northern hardwood, birch, aspen, oak, and
hemlock-hardwoods habitats.
These habitat types were merged based on both soil type and the relative moisture content of each habitat. The habitats that were kept as individual habitats were open water, developed, old field, and the golf course (Fig. 20; Fig. 21).
36
Fig. 20 – Broad habitats types of Dairymen’s.
37
Fig. 21 – Thick white lines represent the location of survey transects for the avian inventory.
38 The number of species present in each section and habitat were used to calculate the pairwise and average constrained Jaccard similarity coefficient (Krebs, 1998). These coefficients can be used to compare the compositional similarity of two communities.
Due to the unequal number of species surveyed in each habitat, I calculated a constrained
Jaccard index. When the number of species in two communities is not equal, the Jaccard index will be lower than 1.0 even if all species in the less diverse community are present in the more diverse community. As the difference between species numbers in two communities becomes large, the Jaccard index becomes more distorted. To overcome this limitation, we calculate an index that is constrained based on the maximum value that the Jaccard index can take in two communities with unequal numbers of species. This value depends on the lowest number of species observed in a habitat. This coefficient was found using the following equation:
JM = SL /SH+SL 1
where JM is the maximum Jaccard similarity value that is possible, SL is the habitat with the lowest total number of species observed, and SH is the habitat with the highest total number of species observed. The unconstrained Jaccard similarity coefficient is:
JA = SC/ SH+SL 2
where JA is the actual Jaccard similarity coefficient and SC is the number of species in common between the two communities. The constrained Jaccard similarity coefficient is the Jaccard index relative to the maximum possible value:
39 JC = JA / JM 3
where JC represents the constrained Jaccard similarity coefficient. Mean Jaccard values were calculated by summing each of the pairwise constrained Jaccard coefficients between the habitats and dividing by the number of compared habitats. Only observations made during the transect surveys were included in the Jaccard calculations.
To further describe the community, each species was assigned to a guild based on feeding (foraging substrate and diet) and nesting (location and type) using the guilds described in Ehrlich, Dobkins, and Whey (1988). Changes in guild structure through time will be valuable data for future researchers. Feeding and nesting guilds data were presented using rarefaction curves and box plots. Both the rarefaction curves and box plots were created using R 3.2.1. The vegan package was used to create rarefaction curves within R 3.2.1.
The total number of species found in alder thickets and black ash swamps were compared using rarefaction curves. I calculated the pairwise similarity in species composition of these two habitats using the constrained Jaccard coefficient.
Species were also assigned to guilds based on feeding (foraging substrate and diet) and nesting (location and type) using a visual comparison.
Bat acoustic data was summarized based on lake and the average number of passes for each survey position. To determine if there was a difference between early and late surveys, I performed an unpaired t-test using R 3.2.1, with the number of passes per survey as the dependent variable.
40 III. RESULTS
Breeding Bird Inventory
I detected 92 bird species, although only 83 species where observed during my transects surveys (Appendix A). The other 9 species were observed outside of the time parameters of the surveys. In the 26 transects surveyed, I observed 3841 individuals representing 28 families. The five most abundant species were red-eyed vireo (n = 582), ovenbird (n = 516), black-throated green warbler (n = 237), American robin (Turdus migratorius) (n = 206), and least flycatcher (n = 203). Many Species were uncommon;
32 species were observed 5 times or less, and 12 of these species were observed just once. The Chao 1 index predicted that there are 95 species found on the property.
During the survey, I detected 87.4% of the species.
The rarefaction curve of all individuals found on the property does not level off, a characteristic of adequate sampling, but does reduce in its slope (Fig. 22). This is a characteristic of missing a few rare species but observing most of the species present on the property.
The average constrained similarity for the avian communities among the habitats was 0.64 ± 0.28 SE. Upland deciduous forest had a constrained Jaccard similarity of
0.83, with 48 species found in this habitat type. The old field exhibited the lowest constrained Jaccard similarity at 0.43, which had 2 species, followed by the swamp hardwoods with a constrained Jaccard similarity of 0.57 with 3 species (Table 2).
41 The mean constrained Jaccard similarity among geographic sections was 0.75 ±
0.07 SE. The highest Jaccard similarity occurred in Sections 1 and 13; values for both were 0.79. In section 1, I observed 29 species and in section 13, I observed 33 species.
The sedge meadow complex section had the lowest average constrained Jaccard similarity at 0.64. I observed a total of 39 species in this section (Table 3).
The rarefaction curve for the diet guild (Fig. 23) revealed that the insectivore guild had the highest species richness of all other diet guilds combined. According to the foraging guild rarefaction curve (Fig. 24), the gleaner guilds (ground, bark, or foliage) had the highest species richness apart from combining the remaining guilds. In addition, the cup nesting type guild had a higher species richness than the cavity nesters and all other nest type guilds (Fig. 25). The nesting location guilds with the highest species richness were the deciduous tree, conifer tree, and ground nesters (Fig. 26).
The guild boxplots have similar trends to the guild rarefaction curves. The diet guild boxplot showed that insectivore guild had a higher number of individuals per species (maximum = 582, Q3 = 71, mean = 63±110, median = 20, Q1 = 7, minimum = 1) than all other guilds combined (maximum = 130, Q3 = 9, median = 4, mean = 11.26±25,
Q1 = 1, minimum = 1) (Fig. 27). When comparing the guilds within the foraging types boxplots, the ground gleaners had the highest mean number of individuals observed per species with a mean of 53±109 individuals (maximum = 516, Q3 = 46, median = 13, Q1
= 3, minimum = 1), followed by foliage gleaners with 49±62 individuals (maximum =
237, Q3 = 74, median = 16, Q1 = 9, minimum = 2), then bark gleaners with 40±31
42 individuals (maximum = 93, Q3 = 67, median = 33, Q1 = 14, minimum = 4). The combined other foraging guilds had a mean number of individuals per species of 39±116 individuals (maximum = 582, Q3 = 10, median = 5, Q1 = 1, minimum = 1) (Fig. 28).
The nesting type guild with the highest number of individuals per species was the cup nesters (maximum = 582, Q3 = 67, mean = 54±97, median = 12, Q1 = 5, minimum = 1).
The cavity nester values are as follows maximum = 148, Q3 = 46, mean = 33±45, median
= 11, Q1 = 4, minimum = 1. All the other nesters values are as follows: maximum = 516,
Q3 = 19, mean = 36±109, median = 5, Q1 = 1, minimum = 1 (Fig. 29). The boxplot values of the nesting location guild are as follows: conifer nesters maximum = 237, Q3 =
68, mean = 49±58, median = 28, Q1 = 11, minimum = 1; deciduous nesters maximum =
206, Q3 = 58, mean = 45±67, median = 10, Q1 = 3, minimum = 1; ground nesters maximum = 516, Q3 = 42, mean = 50±114, median = 9, Q1 = 2, minimum = 1; shrub nesters maximum = 582, Q3 = 19, mean = 82±190, median = 8, Q1 = 5, minimum = 1; snag nesters maximum = 46, Q3 = 13, mean = 11±15, median = 5, Q1 = 4, minimum = 1; and all other nesting location guilds maximum = 22, Q3 = 19, mean = 10±,10 median = 5,
Q1 = 2, minimum = 2 (Fig. 30).
43
Fig. 22 – Rarefaction curve for the avian species found on Dairymen’s.
44 Table 2 – Constrained Jaccard similarity for each broad habitat type surveyed at Dairymen’s Swamp Golf Open Upland Evergreen Upland Hardwood Old Field Course Water Developed Conifer Wetlands Deciduous Upland Deciduous 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.74 0.89 0.90 0.76 XXXXXX Evergreen Wetlands 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.61 0.64 XXXXXX Upland Conifer 0.67 0.50 1.00 0.63 0.78 XXXXXX Developed 0.333 0.500 0.429 0.500 XXXXXX Open Water 1.000 0.500 0.429 XXXXXX Golf Course 0.333 0.000 XXXXXX Old Field 0.000 XXXXXX Swamp Hardwood XXXXXX Average Constrained Jaccard 0.571 0.429 0.597 0.633 0.577 0.731 0.758 0.825 Average Max Jaccard 0.164 0.133 0.205 0.257 0.255 0.242 0.246 0.209 Average Actual Jaccard 0.059 0.025 0.099 0.154 0.149 0.182 0.172 0.174 Number of Species 3.000 2.000 7 19 18 48 45 64 Percentage of Property 1.03% 0.09% 0.50% 29.92% 0.71% 5.71% 6.00% 51.94%
45 Table 3 – Constrained Jaccard similarity for each geographical section surveyed at Dairymen’s
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Muskeg thirteen twelve eleven ten nine eight seven six five three two one Section one 0.66 0.83 0.83 0.72 0.76 0.83 0.76 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.83 0.76 XXXXXX Section two 0.66 0.75 0.81 0.63 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.88 0.78 0.75 0.72 XXXXXX
Section three 0.62 0.79 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.76 0.76 0.82 0.76 0.74 XXXXXX
Section five 0.58 0.76 0.75 0.57 0.67 0.78 0.81 0.69 0.78 XXXXXX
Section six 0.62 0.79 0.77 0.71 0.74 0.79 0.69 0.73 XXXXXX
Section seven 0.62 0.88 0.81 0.69 0.78 0.81 0.73 XXXXXX
Section eight 0.67 0.76 0.78 0.71 0.70 0.80 XXXXXX
Section nine 0.69 0.82 0.73 0.77 0.74 XXXXXX
Section ten 0.64 0.91 0.70 0.77 XXXXXX
Section eleven 0.66 0.73 0.74 XXXXXX
Section twelve 0.62 0.88 XXXXXX
Section thirteen 0.64 XXXXXX
Section Muskeg XXXXXX Average Constrained Jaccard 0.64 0.79 0.77 0.70 0.75 0.78 0.74 0.78 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.75 0.79 Average Max Jaccard 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.39 Average Actual Jaccard 0.26 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.30 0.30 Number of habitats surveyed 2 4 9 6 7 6 8 3 7 6 2 3 3 Total Habitats (with unverified) 2 5 12 8 8 4 11 5 12 8 4 8 6 Number of Species 39 33 44 35 46 48 40 37 39 36 34 32 29
46
Fig. 23 – Rarefaction curves for diet guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents individuals in the diet guilds omnivore, fish, seeds, small mammals, aquatic invertebrates, nectar, greens, and fruits. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own rarefaction curves.
47
Fig. 24 – Rarefaction curves for foraging guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents individuals in the foraging guilds surface dives, hawks, hovers, dabbles, high patrol, high dive, low patrol, probes, swoops, surface dips, and aerial foraging. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own rarefaction curves.
48
Fig. 25 – Rarefaction curves for nest type guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents individuals in the nest type guilds under bark, platform, scrape, pendant, oven, saucer, burrow, sphere, parasite, and old abandon nests. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own rarefaction curves.
49
Fig. 26 – Rarefaction curves for nesting location guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents individuals in the nesting location guilds bank, cliff, reed, and grass. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own rarefaction curves.
50
Fig. 27 – Box plots of the diet guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents the omnivore, seeds, fish, small mammals, greens, fruits, nectar, and aquatic invertebrates guilds. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own boxplot.
51
Fig. 28 – Box plots of the foraging guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents the surface dips, surface dives, dabble, probes, and aerial foraging guilds. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own boxplot.
52
Fig. 29 – Box plots of the nest type guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents the platform, burrow, under bark, parasite, scrape, pendant, abandoned nests, saucer, oven and sphere guilds. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own boxplot.
53
Fig. 30 – Box plots of the nesting location guilds of birds found on the Dairymen’s property. The term “other” represents the bank, cliff, human structure, reed, and grass guilds. These guilds had too few observations to be represented in their own boxplot.
Birds of Alder Thicket and Black Ash Swamp
In the alder thicket and black ash swamp bird surveys, I observed a total of 211 individuals: 108 observations in alder thickets and 103 observations in black ash swamps.
These individuals represented a total of 33 species: 25 species in alder thicket habitats
54 and 21 species in black ash swamps. Alder thicket avifauna contained representatives of
12 families and black ash swamps contained 13 families, for a total of 15 families.
The five most common species I observed in alder thicket habitat were black- capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) (n = 15), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) (n = 11), red-eyed vireo (n = 9), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) (n = 8), and
Nashville warbler (Leiothlypis ruficapilla) (n = 8). The five most common species in black ash swamp were least flycatcher (n = 19), red-eyed vireo (n = 16), ovenbird (n =
11), American robin (n = 9), and brown creeper (Certhia americana) (n = 8; Appendix
B). The pairwise constrained Jaccard of the alder thickets and black ash swamps was
0.62 (actual Jaccard = 0.28, maximum Jaccard = 0.46). Alder thickets have a higher species richness and evenness than the black ash swamp stands (Fig. 31).
I found that in both habitat types most individuals were insectivores (Fig. 32). In alder thickets, most individuals' foraging strategy was gleaning, while individuals found in black ash swamps hovered, bark gleaned, or ground gleaned (Fig. 33). Individuals in both habitats typically used cup nest types (Fig. 34). The two avian communities differed in nesting location guilds. Many individuals found in black ash swamps nested in snags, on the ground, or in conifer. The alder thicket community had very few individuals who nested in snags. The rest of the alder thicket community nested on the ground, or in conifer trees, deciduous trees, or shrubs (Fig. 35).
55
Fig. 31 – Rarefaction curves for Alder Thicket and Black Ash bird communities found on Dairymen’s property. All birds observed inside, on the edge, and within 20 meters included in calculating the rarefaction curves.
56
Fig. 32 – Bar graphs representing the total number of individuals for each diet guild found in Alder thickets and Black Ash swamps on the Dairymen’s property. The left bar graph, with bars in gray, is the individual totals in the Alder thickets and the right bar graph, in black, is the individual totals found in the Black Ash swamp.
Fig. 33 – Bar graphs representing the total number of individuals for each foraging guild found in Alder thickets and Black Ash swamps on the Dairymen’s property. The left bar graph, with bars in gray, is the individual totals in the Alder thickets and the right bar graph, in black, is the individual totals found in the Black Ash swamp. Note the higher number of hover foragers in the Black Ash swamp compared to the higher number of foliage and ground gleaners in the Alder Thickets.
57
Fig. 34 – Bar graphs representing the total number of individuals for each nest type guild found in Alder thickets and Black Ash swamps on the Dairymen’s property. The left bar graph, with bars in gray, is the individual totals in the Alder thickets and the right bar graph, in black, is the individual totals found in the Black Ash swamp.
Fig. 35 – Bar graphs representing the total number of individuals for each nesting location guild found in Alder thickets and Black Ash swamps on the Dairymen’s property. The left bar graph, with bars in gray, is the individual totals in the Alder thickets and the right bar graph, in black, is the individual totals found in the Black Ash swamp. Note the difference in the individual totals for the deciduous tree nesters and the snag nesters for each habitat.
58 Index of Bat Activity
The mean number of bat passes for the 7 lakes (9 sites) was 26.1 ±34.56 SE passes per 30 min survey. Passes per survey varied considerably by lake and by sampling time (Fig. 36). The mean number of passes per late survey (43.9 ± 36.5 SE) was almost 5 times greater than the early survey (9.2 ± 22.7 SE). This difference was significant
(unpaired t = -3.45, df = 28.2, P = 0.002).
Fig. 36 – Point graph of the number of bat passes for each lake surveyed on the Dairymen’s property. The green circle points represent early surveys conducted at sunset, and the blue triangle points represent late surveys conducted half an hour after sunset. D1 and D2 represent the docks that had artificial light.
59 IV. DISCUSSION
Breeding Bird Inventory
This study provided the first inventory of breeding birds at Dairymen's and the first index of bat activity at Dairymen’s. The breeding bird inventory and bat activity baseline will be paired with other future inventories to assess ongoing management and stewardship activities.
The Dairymen bird communities, like most communities, are represented by a few dominant species and many rare or uncommon species. This species distribution is the most common in nature (Preston, 1948). This distribution is called Gaussian distribution or log normal distribution. When rare or habitat specialist species are identified, their habitats can be protected or managed for their benefit. Without inventories, land managers lack the information necessary to do their jobs well. Local surveys and inventories can therefore lead to improved management.
When comparing community similarity among habitats, there was no strong indication that any habitat type had high avian community distinctness. Furthermore, my data suggests that there are at most only few species strongly associated with a specific habitat. During my surveys, I found 19 species that only occurred in a single habitat type. Thirteen of those species were observed only once, so it is not clear if these were under-represented in samples or rare and specialists confined to one habitat. Howe et al.
(1996) suggests that it is not the latter; he found that there are few bird species that are strongly associated with a certain habitat type in the western Great Lakes states. In
60 addition, their study shows many bird species will use alternate habitat types even if their preferred habitat is available. Howe et al. (1996) found that a species could be found in one habitat type at one site and be absent in the same habitat type at another site despite being present in a different habitat type. There are other studies suggesting that bird- habitat association is not a strong relationship (Fielding & Haworth, 1995; Whittingham et al., 2007).
It is likely that factors other than habitat type determine bird-habitat associations.
Birds could be choosing habitats based on resources and structures available within a habitat type. Esatades (1997) found that while some species of insectivorous birds were associated with specific plant species, they were also associated with high densities of insects.
Nesting resources can also determine bird distributions. Cavity nesting species, for example, have declined in areas where snags have been reduced or eliminated
(Mannan, Meslow, & Wight, 1980; Scott, 1979; Imbeau, Savard, & Gagnon, 2000).
Common loons (Gavia immer), typically nest on small vegetated islands to protect their eggs from nest predators (Vermeer, 1973).
Some species, such as rails and snipe, are associated with sedge meadow habitats.
This habitat type contains unique structures called hummocks (Egger & Reed, 2014).
Hummocks provide cover and are home to narrow paths that sedge meadow species can easily move through. Other habitat structure characteristics such as amount of vertical structure (or vertical complexity) have also been seen to increase bird diversity (Willson,
61 1974; MacArthur, MacArthur, & Preer, 1962; Erdelen, 1984). Vertical structures provide more surface area for foraging. Examining guilds can provide information on structure and resources within a habitat. Changes in guild structure can sometimes reveal changes in habitat quality. For example, a decline in cavity-nesting birds could indicate declines in snag density, an important forest structure for wildlife. The boxplots and rarefaction curves provide a summary of guild structures on the landscape that land managers can use to evaluate the structure and resources within a habitat. These visual representations of the guild compositions can also provide a glimpse into patterns and trends when comparing them to future surveys.
When analyzing the data, it becomes evident that there is no strong species- habitat association. However, we must be aware that the calculations can be deceiving for the following reasons. A few of the species were only seen once, and some habitats were not covered as much as other habitats, resulting in observing only a few species within these habitats. It is important for the mean Jaccard to be interpreted in conjunction with the actual Jaccard. In addition, we can use the number of species and the percentage of habitat covered to help us better understand the true diversity of the Dairymen’s property.
The avian richness recorded at Dairymen's may be at least partially attributed to the large and contiguous habitat of the landscape taken as a whole. With the exception of a few ha adjacent to Wolf and Home Lake, Dairymen’s is undeveloped habitat. Much of the surrounding area is state forest land, which is also undeveloped. Fragmented habitats
62 have lower species richness (Shochat et al., 2001; Haddad, et al., 2015). These habitats are often too small to sustain viable populations. In addition, contiguous habitat provides an environment suitable for large mammalian predators such as the gray wolf. These predators can reduce the abundance of mammalian mesopredators, which prey upon birds
(Crook & Soulé, 1999). The contiguity of the habitats on the Dairymen's Inc. property should be preserved to promote diversity.
Based on the Chao 1 index and the rarefaction curves, the number of surveys conducted and the data generated is sufficient for understanding the species richness of breeding bird population on the property. While these surveys are adequate for creating a preliminary checklist, this breeding bird inventory for Dairymen’s is not complete. More surveys conducted during the breeding season survey could capture rare species that are present only in some years, or other species that might be undergoing range expansions.
In addition, breeding birds are only a subset of birds that inhabit the property. Surveys conducted in winter or during migration would capture other species that use the property
(Packett & Dunning, 2009). Certain habitats may be important for the migrating bird species in ways not yet identified (Robbins et al. 1989; Colwell & Oring, 1988; Drent et al., 2007). This is especially important in an era when habitats, including stopover habitats, are becoming increasingly fragmented and isolated (Haddad et al., 2015).
While this inventory is sufficient for understanding the breeding bird richness of the Dairymen’s property today, the abundance distributions of species were different during the pre-settlement era (Schhult et al. 2005). During this era, the landscape was
63 vastly different, with more continuous and mature habitats (Rooney & Waller, 2008;
Curtis, 1956; Howe et al., 1996). Today, the landscape has experienced changes due to land-use, disturbance regime alterations such as suppression of fire, and exotic species introductions (Palmer et al. 2004). Awareness of this difference is especially important for understanding the effects of European settlement on the flora and fauna and prioritizing conservation goals.
Local bird survey data is useful for promoting avian biodiversity. With local data, managers can analyze where rare and uncommon species are found and prioritize those areas for conservation. However, avian data should be paired with data representing other taxonomic groups. Conservation management strategies need to be based on data from multiple taxa to best conserve overall biodiversity.
Birds of alder thicket and black ash swamp
In this survey, species that need more open spaces for nesting and foraging were typically found in black ash swamps, while species that prefer complex vertical structure for nesting and foraging were found in the alder thickets. It is likely that if black ash swamp is replaced by alder thickets, we will see an avian community shift. Unless they can adapt to alder thicket, the abundance of some bird species could decline.
This difference in species composition between alder thicket and black ash swamp probably reflects differences in vertical habitat structure. Species diversity increases with habitat complexity (Willson, 1974; MacArthur, MacArthur, & Preer 1962;
Erdelen, 1984). When reviewing feeding guild differences between habitats, there are
64 less hovering and hawking individuals than gleaners in alder thickets than the black ash swamps. Hovering and hawking foraging requires space for the bird to fly, while gleaning requires more surface area for individuals to forage on. Furthermore, nesting guilds differ. In alder thickets, there are more individuals that typically use deciduous trees and shrubs for nesting, while in black ash swamps there are more individuals that use snags for nesting. Differences in vertical structure and resource distribution contribute to differences in species composition between these two habitat types.
When emerald ash borer invades a stand, there is often an observable sequence.
The earliest sign of invasion is the presence of small D-shape holes on the trunk of attacked trees. As the ash borer becomes more abundant, bark will be chipped off in small sections by woodpeckers and other bark gleaning species. Soon, the tree exhibits epicormic sprouting and crown die-back. It takes just a few years to go from initial invasion to tree death. In stands of mixed and pure ash, these deaths will thin tree density and create openings in the canopy (Burr & McCullough, 2014; Herms & McCullough,
2014). During invasion, the avian community can change multiple times. In an uninvaded black ash swamp, many bird species are typical of northern hardwood habitats, such as red-eyed vireo, least flycatcher, ovenbird, and American robin. As the ash borer becomes more abundant, more bark gleaning species such as nuthatches, creepers, and woodpeckers forage and use the stand (Flower et al. 2014; Koenig et al. 2013). Once the snags deteriorate and the understory species grow, another shift in the avian community
65 occurs. The species that comprise this community would be dependent on the future habitat.
It is possible that some black ash swamp bird species are able to use the alder thicket. Many alder thicket bird communities are composed of species that are associated with the surrounding habitat types (Hoffman, 1989). However, it is likely that certain foraging guilds, such as hawking and hovering guilds, would be excluded due to the density of vertical structure that would inhibit this foraging strategy.
Based on the data presented here, black ash swamp bird species will not become extirpated from Dairymen’s. The property’s black ash stands are typically small and the species found in these habitat type are also found throughout the northern hardwood.
Burr and McCullough (2014) found that many canopy trees took over the canopy gaps left by ash trees, mainly through lateral growth. Many of the small black ash swamp stands could be replaced by species immediately surrounding the swamps. If so, this would likely not result in any long-term changes to the bird community.
The transition from black ash swamps to alder thickets could benefit some species. Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) were found in only a few locations on the property, including alder thickets. An increase in alder thicket may increase the abundance of these less common species.
While emerald ash borer might benefit some species, it will reduce plant diversity on the property by eliminating black ash and white ash (Fraxinus Americana) from the
66 forest. This could extend to eliminating species that are ash specialists (Flower, Knight,
& Gonzalez-Meler 2013; Gandhi & Herms 2010a; Gandhi & Herms 2010b).
Index of Bat Activity
Data from this study will provide Dairymen’s with a baseline measurement of bat activity, which may prove useful in assessing the effects of white-nose syndrome or other emerging diseases that reach the property. Dairymen’s could lose 70-80% of its bat population within a short time frame after fungal infection has become part of the landscape and white-nose affects bats there (Blehert et al., 2008; Brooks, 2011; Dzal et. al, 2011; Frick et. al, 2010). Many areas affected by white-nose have experienced both a decline in bat numbers and a shift in bat community composition. Northern Long-eared bat, Indiana bat, and little brown bat – Once the most abundant bat in North America – decline disproportionately relative to other bat species (Brooks, 2011; Ford et al., 2011;
Francl et al., 2012; Dzal et al., 2011; Frick et. al, 2010). Researchers have also observed growing or stable populations of big brown bats, eastern red bat, silver-haired bat, and tri- colored bat at sites with white-nose syndrome (Brooks, 2011; Ford, 2011; Francl et al.,
2012; Dzal et al., 2011). While the fungus can infect all the Wisconsin bat species
(Gargas et al., 2009), not all species are affected equally. The hibernation and social habits of the big brown bats, eastern red bat, silver-haired bats, and tri-colored bat reduces the impact of this pathogen on these species (Brook, 2011; Ford, 2011). There has also been data suggesting that there are shifts in reproduction cycles of the infected bat species. Francl (et al., 2012) found that there was a shift in the pregnancy and
67 lactation cycles to later in the season in the little brown bat and northern long-eared bat.
This shift results in reduced offspring survival (Frick, Reynolds, & Kunz, 2010). It is likely that Dairymen’s Inc. will experience the same losses, change in reproduction cycles, and species composition shift as many other areas where white-nose syndrome has been observed.
Because white-nose syndrome will likely reach Dairymen's in the near future, managers should consider strategies that will mitigate the ecological impacts of bat declines. Wisconsin bats are aerial insectivores. A decline in bat abundance could lead to increased aerial insect populations, some of which are herbivores (Kalka, Smith, &
Kalko 2008; Williams-Guillén, Perfecto, & Vandermeer, 2008; Anthony & Kunz, 1977).
One strategy to control insect populations might be the promotion of species that feed on aerial insects, such as swallows, swifts, and nightjars (Brigham, 1990; Shields &
Bildstein, 1979; McCarty & Winkler, 1999; Anthony & Kunz, 1977). Nightjars forage in the same vertical zones and time frame as bats (Shields & Bildstein, 1979). During my survey, I often observed nightjars and common nighthawks (Chordeiles minor) feeding alongside bats. Nighthawk nesting platforms or adding gravel to building roofs would increase nesting opportunities.
This data can be used to quantify the effects of white-nose syndrome but it should be used with caution. There is potential that this fungal infection has already affected bat populations at Dairymen’s. Confirmed reports of white-nose syndrome are present in adjacent counties and throughout the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Heffernan, 2016). It
68 is likely that bats at Dairymen’s have already declined, but to an unknown extent. My bat activity data might present a shifting baseline (Pauly, 1995; Pinnegar & Engelhard, 2008;
Papworth et al., 2009). If bat numbers have declined, the use of this data as a baseline may hide the true extent of bat declines (Pauly 1995, Pinnegar & Engelhard 2008).
However, in the absence of a pre-established inventory, the data gathered in this inventory offers the best approximation available to establish a baseline and monitor change in bat populations at Dairymen’s.
While these bat surveys will be helpful for evaluating bat numbers in the future, they could be improved upon. Future surveys should be conducted later in the evening and over a longer time period. My data suggests that there was a significant difference in activity level between the two survey times, with the later survey having a higher activity level. Kunz (1973) found that different species typically forage at different times of the night. This difference in foraging times could be a way for the species to avoid competition. Temporal avoidance is a common strategy for reducing competition
(Carothers & Jaksić, 1984). It is likely that some species were missed during my surveys because the surveys were conducted too early. Future surveys should be conducted 2-4 hours after sunset. This time frame provides an overlap for when most Wisconsin species activity levels peak (Kunz, 1973) and for the species that more vulnerable to white-nose
(Brooks, 2011; Ford, 2011; Francl et al., 2012; Dzal et al., 2011). Little brown bat, the species most vulnerable to white-nose (Blehert et al., 2008; Brooks, 2011; Dzal et al.,
69 2011; Frick et. al 2010), is most active from sunset to 4 hours after (Kunz, 1973), and therefore was most likely captured during the survey.
In addition to later surveys, a species inventory and long-term monitoring would provide invaluable knowledge on which species are impacted the most by white-nose syndrome. Each of these species has a unique life history and is impacted differentially by white-nose syndrome (Brooks, 2011; Ford, 2011; Francl et al., 2012 Dzal et al., 2011).
Knowledge on community composition, species identification, and continual monitoring would help to make better predictions of white-nose syndrome effects.
Future Studies and Conclusion
When using these inventories in conservation planning, it is important to remember that these data are incomplete. The breeding bird inventory does not take in account species that use Dairymen’s in winter and during migratory stop overs.
Therefore more surveys are needed to create a more complete avian inventory. This will give conservation planners a better understanding of avian diversity for the entire year.
In addition, the bat activity baseline only represents the activity level during one hour of the normal foraging time. It does not have any information on the population dynamics or which species represent that activity levels.
It is important to note that the population data and activity data collected during this study likely represent different populations and activity levels to at least some degree from the wildlife that were found here during the pre-settlement era. The natural communities have changed far quicker from the beginning of the European settlement era
70 to modern day than the entire 850 years proceeding this era (Cole et al. 1998). This change in the natural communities has caused a cascade effect, dramatically changing the distributions and abundances of flora and fauna species (Schulte et al. 2005). Because we have little to no data on many species populations, we use the earliest data or record as our baseline, including modern day data. Without records or personal knowledge, we perceive our initial experience as normal. However, these data represent shifting baselines, or changes in perceptions and measurements (Pinnegar and Engelhard, 2008;
Papworth et al., 2008). My data represents modern day distributions, abundances, and activity levels, not the pre-settlement distributions, abundances, and activity levels. For the bird inventory, there may have been other species present and species in higher and lower abundances found in this area before European settlement (Schulte et al. 2005).
The lakes may have experienced more or less activity during the pre-settlement era, depending on where bats were feeding across the landscape. This knowledge of the shifting baseline helps conservation planners and land managers understand the true effect our presence has across the landscape and conservation efforts should be prioritized.
Conservation planning decisions and adaptive management should not be made based on these findings alone. While birds are considered a reliable surrogate, they do not represent all taxonomic groups. Bird communities are sensitive to changes in vertical habitat structure, but other taxa such as plants, fungi, amphibians, or dragonflies could be less sensitive to such shifts (Howe et al., 1996). Inventories of other taxonomic groups
71 would be beneficial. A more robust evaluation of the management plan would come from multiple inventories of multiple taxa.
72 V. REFERENCES
1. Ambuel, B., and Temple, S. 1982. Songbird Populations in Southern Wisconsin Forests: 1954 and 1979. Journal of Field Ornithology. 53 (2): 149-158
2. Anthony, E.L., and Kunz, T.H. 1977. Feeding strategies of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, in southern New Hampshire. Ecology. 58 (4): 775-786
3. Black, M.R., and Judziewicz, E.J. 2009. Wildflowers of Wisconsin and the Great Lakes Region: A comprehensive Field Guide. Second edition University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin
4. Blehert, D.S., Hicks, A.C., Behr, M., Meteyer, C.U., Berlowski-Zier, B.M., Buckles, E.L., Coleman, J.T.H., Darling, S.R., Gargas, A., Niver, R., Okoniewski, J.C., Rudd, R.J., and Stone, W.B. 2008. Bat White-nose syndrome: an emerging fungal pathogen? Science. 323 (5911): 227
5. Bibby,C. 2004. Bird Diversity Survey Methods. Sutherland, W., and Newton, I., Green, R. Bird Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques. 1-17. New York: Oxford University Press
6. Brigham, R.M. 1990. Prey selection by big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) and common nighthawks (Chordeiles minor). American Midland Naturalist. 124 (1): 73- 80
7. Brooks, R.T. 2011. Declines in summer bat activity in central New England 4 years following the initial detection of white-nose syndrome. Biodiversity Conservation. 20: 2537-2541
8. Burr, S.J., and McCullough, D.G. 2014. Condition of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) overstory and regeneration at three stages of the emerald ash borer invasion wave. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44(7): 768-776
9. Canterbury, G., Martin, T., Petit, D., and Bradford, D. 2000. Bird Communities and Habitat as Ecological Indicators of Forest Condition in Regional Monitoring. Conservation Biology. 14(2):544-558
10. Carothers, J.H., and Jaksić, F.M. 1984. Time as a niche difference: the role of interference of competition. Oikos. 42 (3): 403-406
73 11. Clare, E.L., Barber, B.R., Sweeney, B.W., Hebert, P.D.N., and Fenton, M.B. 2011. Eating local: influences of habitat on the diet of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Molecular Ecology. 20: 1772-1780
12. Cole, KL, Davis, MB, E Stearns, Guntenspergen, G, Walker, K. 1998. Historical landcover changes in the Great Lakes region. Pages 43-50 in T. Sisk, editor. Perspectives on the land use history of North America: a context for understanding our changing environment. U.S. Geological Survey, Springfield, Virginia.
13. Colwell M.A., and Oring, L.W. 1988. Habitat use by breeding and migrating shorebirds in southcentral Saskatchewan. The Wilson Bulletin. 554-566
14. Crooks, K.R., and Soulé, M.E. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature. 400(6744): 563-566
15. Curtis, J.T. 1956. The modification of mid-latitude grasslands and forests by man. Pg 721-736 in W.L., ed. Man’s role in changing the face of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. De Jong, C. V. Z. 1983. Handbook of Canadian Mammals: Bats. (Vol. 2). Canada Communication Group Pub.
17. Drent, R.H., Eichhorn, G., Flagstad, Van der Graaf, A.J., Litvin K.E., and Stahl, J. 2007. Migratory connectivity in Arctic geese: Spring stopoves are the weak links in meeting targets for breeding. Journal of Ornithology. 148(2): 501-514
18. Dzal, Y., McGuire, L.P., Veselka, N., and Fenton, M.B. 2011. Going, going, gone: the impact of white-nose syndrome on the summer activity of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Biology Letters. 7:392-394
19. Egger, S.D., and Reed, D.M. 2014. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin: Version 3.1. St. Paul District, Minnesota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
20. Ehrlich, P.R., Dobkin, D.S., and Whey, D. 1988. The birder's handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
21. Erdelen, M. 1984. Bird communities and egetation structure: I. Correlations and comparisons of simple and diversity indices. Oecologia. 61: 277-284
74 22. Esatades, C.F. 1997. Bird-habitat relationships in a vegetational gradient in the Andes of central Chile. The Condor. 99: 719-727
23. ESRI. 2014. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.3. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
24. Fielding, A.H., and Haworth, P.F. 1995. Testing the generality of bird-habitat models. Conservation Biology. 9(6): 1466-1481
25. Fisher, J., Wilkinson, L. 2005. The Response of Mammals to Forest Fires and Timber harvest in the North American Boreal Forest. Mammal Review. 35: 51-81
26. Flower, C.E., Knight, K.S., Gonzalez-Meler, M.A. 2013. Impacts of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) induced ash (Fraxinus spp.) mortality on forest carbon cycling and successional dynamics in the eastern United States. Biological Invasions. 15(4), 931-944.
27. Flower, C.E., Long, L.C., Knight, K.S., Rebbeck, J., Brown, J.S., Gonzalez-Meler, M.A., and Whelan, C.J. 2014. Native bark-foraging birds preferentially forage in infected ash (Fraxinus spp.) and prove effective predators of the invasive emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire). Forest Ecology and Management. 313: 300- 306
28. Ford, W.M., Britzke, E.R., Dobony, C.A., Rodrigue, J.L., and Johnson, J.B. 2011. Patterns of acoustical activity of bats prior to and following white-nose syndrome occurrence. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 2(2) 125-134
29. Francl, K.E., Ford, W.M., Sparks, D.W., Brack Jr, V. 2012. Capture and Reproductive trends in summer bat communities in West Virginia: Assessing the impact of White-nose Syndrome. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 3(1): 33- 42
30. Frick, W.F., Pollock, J.F., Hick, A.C., Langwig, K.E., Reynolds, D.S., Turner, G.G., Butchkoski, C.M., and Kunz, T.H. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science. 329: 679-682
31. Frick, W.F., Reynolds, D.S., and Kunz, T.H. 2010. Influence of climate and reproductive timing on demography of little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Animal Ecology. 79: 128-136
75 32. Gandhi, K.J.K., and Herms, D.A. 2010a. Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on ecological processes and interactions in forests of eastern North America. Biological Invasions. 12: 389-405
33. Gandhi, K.J.K., and Herms, D.A. 2010b. North American arthropods at risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the alien Emerald ash borer. Biological Invasions. 12:1839-1846
34. Gargas, A., Trest, M.T., Christensen, M., Volk, T.J., and Blehert, D.S. 2009. Geomyces destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. Mycotaxon. 108: 147-154
35. Gregory, R., Gibbons, D., and Donald, P. 2004. Bird Census and Survey Techniques. Sutherland, W, Newton, I, Green, R. Bird Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques.18-55. New York: Oxford University Press
36. Gregory, R, van Strien, A. (2010). Wild Bird Indicators: Using Composite Population Trends of Birds as Measures of Environmental Health. Ornithological Science 9(1):3- 22
37. Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D., Cook, W.M., Damschen, E.I., Ewers, R.M., Foster, B.L., Jenkins, C.N., King, A.J., Laurance, W.F., Levey, D.J., Margules, C.R., Melbourne, B.A., Nicholls, A.O., Orrock, J.L., Song, D.X., and Townshend, J.R. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems. Science Advances. 1(2) e1500052
38. Wickham, H. and Francois, R. 2015. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.4.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
39. Heffernan, L. 2016. White Nose Syndrome (WNS) Occurrence by County/District [Map]. PA Game Commission.
40. Heinselman, M.L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research. 3(3): 329-382
41. Herkert, J. 1995. An Analysis of Midwestern Breeding Bird Population Trends: 1966- 1993. American Midland Naturalist. 41-50
76 42. Herms, D.A., McCullough, D.G. 2014. Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: history, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual review of entomology. 59: 13-30
43. Hoffman, R.M. 1989. Birds of tall shrub communities: Alder thickets and shrub-carr. The Passenger Pigeon. 51(3): 263-273
44. Howe, R.W., Niemi, G., and Probst, J.R. 1996. Management of western Great Lakes forest for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NC. 144-167
45. Imbeau, L., Savard, J.P.L., Gagnon, R. 2000. Comparing bird assemblages in successional black spruce stands originating from fire and logging. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77(12): 1850-1860
46. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O'Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H. and Wagner, H. 2015. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.3-1. http://CRAN.R- project.org/package=vegan
47. Jones, G., Jacobs, D., Kunz, T., Willig, M., and Racey, P. 2009. Carpe Noctem: The Importance of Bats as Bioindicators. Endangered Species Research. 8: 93-115
48. Kalka, M.B., Smith, A.R., and Kalko, E.K.V. 2008. Bats limit arthropods and herbivory in a tropical forest. Science. 320 (5872) 71
49. Koeing, W.D., Liebhold, A.M., Bonter, D.N., Hochachka, W.M., and Dickinson, J.L. 2013. Effects of the emerald ash borer invasion on four species of birds. Biological Invasions. 15: 2095-2103
50. Kotar, J., Kovach, J.A., and Locey, C.T. 1988. Field Guide forest habitat types of northern Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Department of Forest, University of Wisconsin- Madison, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource.
51. Krebs, C.J. 1998. Ecological methodology (Second Ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman
52. MacArthur, R.H., MacArthur, J.W., Preer, J. 1962. On bird species diversity II: Prediction of bird census from habitat measurements. The American Naturalist. 96:167-174
77 53. MacSwiney, M.C., Clarke, F.M., and Racey, P.A. 2008. What you see is not what you get: the role of ultrasonic detectors in increasing inventory completeness in Neotropical bat assemblages. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1364-1371
54. Mannan, R.W., Meslow, E.C., and Wight, H.M. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 787-797
55. McCarty, J.P., and Winkler, DW. 1999. Foraging ecology and diet selectivity of tree swallows feeding nestlings. The Condor. 101: 246-254
56. Minnis, A.M., and Lindner, D.L. 2013. Phylogentic evaluation of Geomyces and allies reveals no close relatives of Pseudogymnoascus destructans, comb. nov., in bat hibernacula of eastern North America. Fungal Biology. 11: 638-649
57. Packett, D.L., and Dunning Jr, J.B. 2009. Stopover habitat selection by migrant landbirds in a fragmented forest-agriculture landscape. The Auk. 126(3): 579-589
58. Palik, B.J., Ostry, M.E., Venette, R.C., and Abdela, E. 2012. Tree regeneration in black ash (Fraxinus nigra) stands exhibiting crown dieback in Minnesota. Forest Ecology and Management. 269: 26-30
59. Palmer, M, Bernhardt, E, Chornesky, E, Collins, S, Dobson, A, Duke, C, Gold, B, Jacobson, R, Kingsland, S, Kranz, R, Mappin, M, Martinez, ML, Micheli, F, Morse, J, Pace, M, Pascual, M, Palumbi, S, Reichman, OJ, Simons, A, Townsend, A, Turner, M. 2004. Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251-1252
60. Papworth, S.K., Rist, J., Coad, L., and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2008. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters. 2: 93-100
61. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 10 (10): 430
62. Pinnegar, J.K., and Engelhard, G.H. 2008. The ‘shifting baseline’ phenomenon: a global perspective. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 18: 1-16
63. Preston, F.W. 1948. The Commonness, And Rarity, of Species. Ecology. 29(3): 254- 283
64. R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R- project.org/.
78
65. Robbins, C.S., Sauer, J.R., Greenberg, R.S., and Droege, S. (1989) Population declines in North Amercian birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. 86(19): 7658-7662
66. Rooney, T.P., and Waller, D.M. 2008. Plant species diversity in the once and future Northwoods. Pages 75-90 in DM Waller and TP Rooney, editors. The Vanishing Present. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois USA.
67. Rooney, T.P. 2009a. Dairymen’s Inc. Land Stewardship Management Plan. 2009- 2059.
68. Rooney, T.P. 2009b. High white-tailed deer densities benefit graminoids and contribute to biotic homogenization of forest ground-layer vegetation. Plant Ecology. 202(1): 103-111
69. Rooney, T., Peters, J., and Hays, J. 2010. Changes in the Sugarcreek Metroparks Bird Community between 1978 and 2010. The Ohio Cardinal. 34 (1): 30-37
70. Schulte, LA, Pidgeon, AM, Mladenoff, DJ. 2005. One Hundred Fifty Years of Change in Forest Bird Breeding Habitat: Estimates of Species Distibutions. Society for Conservation Biology. 19 (6): 1944-1956
71. Scott, V.E. 1979. Bird response to snag removal in ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry. 77(1): 26-28
72. Shields, W.M., and Bildstein, K.L. 1979. Birds versus bats: Behavioral interactions at a localized food source. Ecology. 60 (3): 468-474
73. Shochat, E., Abramsky, Z., and Pinshow, B. 2001. Breeding bird species diversity in the Negev: effects of scrub fragmentation by planted forests. Journal of Applied Ecology. 38(5): 1135-1147
74. Shaw, S., and Fredine, C.G. 1971. Wetlands of the United States. Circular 39. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. D.C. 67 pp
75. Staahlschmidt, P, Brühl, C. (2012). Bats as bioindicators – The Need of a Standardized Method for Acoustic Bat Activity Surveys. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 503-508
79 76. Streyckmans, F.B. 1968. The story of our club: An interpretive history of Dairymen’s Country Club, Boulder Junction, Wisconsin. Evanston, IL: The Shori Press. Reprint 2015.
77. Vermeer, K. 1973. Some aspects of the nesting requirements of common loons in Alberta. The Wilson Bulletin. 429-435
78. Whittingham, M.J., Krebs, J.R., Swetnam, R.D., Vickery, J.A., Wilson, J.D., and Freckleton, R.P. 2007. Should conservation strategies consider spatial generality? Farmland birds show regional not national patterns of habitat association. Ecology Letters. 10:25-35
79. WiDNR. 2014. Bats of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.
80. Williams-Guillén, K., Perfecto, I., and Vandermeer, J. 2008. Bats limit insects in a Neotropical agroforestry system. Science. 320 (5872): 70
81. Willson, M. 1974. Avian Community organization and habitat structure. Ecology. 55: 1017-1029
80 APPENDIX A
Dairymen’s Inc. breeding bird inventory: This table displays the total number of surveyed individuals, per species in habitat(s) observed in at Dairymen’s Species Total Habitats Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) 5 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Deciduous American Black Duck (Anas rubipes) 1 Open Water American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 8 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) 8 Developed, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) 9 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous American Robin (Turdus migratorius) 206 Developed,Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) 2 Upland Deciduous Evergreen Wetland, Open Water, Upland Conifer, Upland Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 8 Deciduous Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 1 Open Water Barred Owl (Strix varia) 2 Upland Deciduous Bay-breasted Warbler (Setophaga castanea) 2 Upland Deciduous Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 6 Evergreen Wetland, Open Water Evergreen Wetland, Open Water, Upland Conifer, Upland Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 72 Deciduous Black Spruce, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Blackburnian Warbler (Setophaga fusca) 91 Deciduous Black Spruce, Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) 148 Upland Deciduous Black-throated Blue Warbler (Setophaga caerulescens) 19 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens) 237 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 131 Deciduous Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) 23 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous
81 Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) 1 Upland Deciduous Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) 56 Developed, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 1 Developed Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 6 Evergreen Wetland, Open Water Cape May Warbler (Setophaga tigrina) 11 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Deciduous Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) 14 Developed,Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer Chestnut-sided Warbler (Setophaga pensylvanica) 104 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) 65 Deciduous Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pallida) 9 Honey Suckle, Evergreen Wetland Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 3 Developed, Upland Conifer Common Loon (Gavia immer) 41 Open Water, Evergreen Wetland Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) 1 Evergreen Wetland Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) 4 Open water Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Common Raven (Corvus corax) 23 Deciduous Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 28 Evergreen Wetland Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) 2 Upland Deciduous Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 4 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) 2 Developed, Upland Deciduous Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 5 Upland Deciduous Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) 102 Developed, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 12 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 1 Evergreen Wetland Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 3 Evergreen Wetland, Open Water Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) 1 Upland Conifer Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) 1 Upland Conifer Hairy Woodpecker (Leuconotopicus villosus) 21 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 118 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous
82 Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) 5 Open Water Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) 8 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) 204 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Magnolia Warbler (Setophaga magnolia) 10 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 3 Open Water Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 6 Upland Conifer Mourning Warbler (Geothlypis Philadelphia) 8 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Evergreen Wetland, Swamp Hardwood, Upland Conifer, Upland Nashville Warbler (Leiothlypis ruficapilla) 136 Deciduous Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 17 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) 1 Evergreen Wetland Northern Parula (Setophaga americana) 58 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) 1 Upland Conifer Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) 516 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Palm Warbler (Setophaga palmarum) 5 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Pileated Woodpecker (Hylatomus pileatus) 11 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Deciduous Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) 16 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Deciduous Pine Warbler (Setophaga pinus) 39 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Purple Finch (Haemorhous purpureus) 1 Upland Deciduous Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) 1 Open Water Black Spruce, Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) 71 Upland Deciduous Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Swamp Hardwood, Upland Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 583 Conifer, Upland Deciduous Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) 3 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Deciduous Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 22 Evergreen Wetland Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) 6 Evergreen Wetland Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) 54 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 10 Developed, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous
83 Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 21 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) 5 Evergreen Wetland Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) 43 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) 2 Evergreen Wetland Developed, Honey Suckle, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 42 Upland Deciduous Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 19 Evergreen Wetland Tennessee Warbler (Leiothlypis peregrina) 12 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 2 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 14 Upland Deciduous Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) 3 Upland Deciduous White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) 10 Developed, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 61 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 3 Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Winter Wren (Troglodytes hiemalis) 47 Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Deciduous Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) 8 Evergreen Wetland Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) 1 Evergreen Wetland Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) 4 Upland Deciduous Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 93 Deciduous Developed, Evergreen Wetland, Upland Conifer, Upland Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata) 75 Deciduous Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) 5 Upland Deciduous
84 APPENDIX B
Alder thicket and black ash swamp breeding bird inventory: This table presents total Individuals per species observed during the alder and ash surveys at Dairymen’s. Species Total Habitats Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) 1 Alder Thicket American Robin (Turdus migratorius) 14 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 14 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Blackburnian Warbler (Setophaga fusca) 2 Black Ash Swamp Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) 13 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens) 9 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 15 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) 4 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) 1 Alder Thicket Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) 10 Black Ash Swamp Chestnut-sided Warbler (Setophaga pensylvanica) 2 Alder Thicket Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 9 Alder Thicket Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) 12 Black Ash Swamp Hairy Woodpecker (Leuconotopicus villosus) 7 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 2 Black Ash Swamp Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) 19 Black Ash Swamp Magnolia Warbler (Setophaga magnolia) 2 Alder Thicket Nashville Warbler (Leiothlypis ruficapilla) 11 Alder Thicket Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 2 Alder Thicket Northern Parula (Setophaga americana) 6 Alder Thicket Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) 20 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 24 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) 4 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 4 Alder Thicket Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) 2 Black Ash Swamp Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 6 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 8 Alder Thicket White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) 2 Black Ash Swamp White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 4 Alder Thicket Winter Wren (Troglodytes hiemalis) 9 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) 1 Alder Thicket Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 15 Alder Thicket, Black Ash Swamp Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata) 2 Black Ash Swamp
85