DOCSLIB.ORG

Best Management Practices for Species of Significance in Stanley Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Best Management Practices for Species of Significance in Stanley Park Best Management Practices for Species of Significance in Stanley Park Submitted to: Alan Duncan, Vancouver Park Board Submitted by: Robyn Worcester and Brian Titaro, Stanley Park Ecology Society Date: 12 June, 2012 Acknowledgments Authors: Robyn Worcester, Dipl. Tech., B.Sc, RPBio - Conservation Programs Manager, Stanley Park Ecology Society Brian Titaro, B.E.S, EPt - Conservation Technician, Stanley Park Ecology Society Editors: Leora Fenner, Louise Pedersen and Patricia Thomson Funding Support: Peer Review: Abby Schwarz Laurence Brown Bruce Cousens Maria Morlin Carlene Lee Mark White Caroline Astley Melissa Todd Carmen Cardin Michael Price Dalyce Epp Michael Chutter Dick Cannings Pontus Lindgren Elizabeth Elle Peter Woods Elke Wind Ralph Wells Erin Rutherford Rob Cannings Isabelle Aube Roy Teo Jennifer Heron Sandie Hollick Kenyon Karen Barry Sheila Byers Karen Needham Susan Leech Kiyoshi Takashashi Terry Taylor Krista Englund ZoAnn Morten Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Goal ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Work Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Key Staff and Project Partners ........................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Species at Risk .................................................................................................. 5 Band-tailed Pigeon ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Barn Swallow .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Blue Dasher ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Johnson’s Hairstreak ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Pacific Water Shrew...................................................................................................................................... 22 Western Screech-Owl ................................................................................................................................... 26 Olive-sided Flycatcher .................................................................................................................................. 30 Surf Scoter .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Purple Martin................................................................................................................................................ 37 Ecosystems at Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 42 3.0 Keystone Species ............................................................................................ 51 American Beaver .......................................................................................................................................... 52 4.0 Nesting Bald Eagles ........................................................................................ 56 Nesting Bald Eagles ....................................................................................................................................... 57 5.0 Rare species ................................................................................................... 65 Vancouver Feather-duster ............................................................................................................................ 66 Round-leaved Sundew .................................................................................................................................. 69 Marbled Murrelet ......................................................................................................................................... 72 6.0 Locally Declining Populations ......................................................................... 76 Small Owls .................................................................................................................................................... 77 Amphibians ................................................................................................................................................... 80 Reptiles ......................................................................................................................................................... 87 Bats ............................................................................................................................................................... 92 Cavity Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................................................... 98 Native Insect Pollinators ............................................................................................................................. 104 Salmonids ................................................................................................................................................... 109 7.0 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................. 113 Waterfowl ................................................................................................................................................... 114 Shorebirds ................................................................................................................................................... 123 Coots and Rails ........................................................................................................................................... 130 Songbirds .................................................................................................................................................... 134 Bitterns and Herons .................................................................................................................................... 147 Loons and Grebes ....................................................................................................................................... 153 Gulls and Terns ........................................................................................................................................... 158 8.0 References .................................................................................................... 164 List of Figures Figure 1: Map of ecological communities at risk. .................................................................................................. 48 Figure 2: Diagram of pond-levelling device currently installed in Beaver Lake. ................................................... 55 Figure 3: Waterfowl identification poster. .......................................................................................................... 115 Figure 4: Total number of water birds seen along the Stanley Park shoreline . ................................................. 120 Figure 5: Total number of birds seen during monthly bird counts at Beaver Lake and Lost Lagoon . ................ 121 Figure 6: Breeding bird survey locations in Stanley Park. ................................................................................... 138 Figure 7: Merlin Silhouette to use in the prevention of songbird collision. ........................................................ 146 Figure 8: Loon abundance along the Stanley Park seawall ................................................................................ 156 Figure 9: Grebe abundance along the Stanley Park seawall .............................................................................. 156 List of Tables Table 1: Ecological Communities (site associations) at risk in Stanley Park. ......................................................... 42 Table 2: Stanley Park bald eagle pair nesting productivity records. ..................................................................... 62 Table 3: Cavity excavator nest tree and hole descriptions. ................................................................................. 100 Table 4: Songbird species on record for Stanley Park. ........................................................................................ 142 1.0 Introduction Background On May 6, 2010, Vancouver Park Board
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild Bees of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: Richness, Abundance, and Spatio-Temporal Beta-Diversity
    Wild bees of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: richness, abundance, and spatio-temporal beta-diversity Olivia Messinger Carril1, Terry Griswold2, James Haefner3 and Joseph S. Wilson4 1 Santa Fe, NM, United States of America 2 USDA-ARS Pollinating Insects Research Unit, Logan, UT, United States of America 3 Biology Department, Emeritus Professor, Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States of America 4 Department of Biology, Utah State University - Tooele, Tooele, UT, United States of America ABSTRACT Interest in bees has grown dramatically in recent years in light of several studies that have reported widespread declines in bees and other pollinators. Investigating declines in wild bees can be difficult, however, due to the lack of faunal surveys that provide baseline data of bee richness and diversity. Protected lands such as national monuments and national parks can provide unique opportunities to learn about and monitor bee populations dynamics in a natural setting because the opportunity for large-scale changes to the landscape are reduced compared to unprotected lands. Here we report on a 4-year study of bees in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), found in southern Utah, USA. Using opportunistic collecting and a series of standardized plots, we collected bees throughout the six-month flowering season for four consecutive years. In total, 660 bee species are now known from the area, across 55 genera, and including 49 new species. Two genera not previously known to occur in the state of Utah were discovered, as well as 16 new species records for the state. Bees include ground-nesters, cavity- and twig-nesters, cleptoparasites, narrow specialists, generalists, solitary, and social species.
    [Show full text]
  • Bees in Urban Landscapes: an Investigation of Habitat Utilization By
    Bees in urban landscapes: An investigation of habitat utilization By Victoria Agatha Wojcik A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, & Management in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Joe R. McBride, Chair Professor Gregory S. Biging Professor Louise A. Mozingo Fall 2009 Bees in urban landscapes: An investigation of habitat utilization © 2009 by Victoria Agatha Wojcik ABSTRACT Bees in urban landscapes: An investigation of habitat utilization by Victoria Agatha Wojcik Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, & Management University of California, Berkeley Professor Joe R. McBride, Chair Bees are one of the key groups of anthophilies that make use of the floral resources present within urban landscapes. The ecological patterns of bees in cities are under further investigation in this dissertation work in an effort to build knowledge capacity that can be applied to management and conservation. Seasonal occurrence patterns are common among bees and their floral resources in wildland habitats. To investigate the nature of these phenological interactions in cities, bee visitation to a constructed floral resource base in Berkeley, California was monitored in the first year of garden development. The constructed habitat was used by nearly one-third of the locally known bee species. Bees visiting this urban resource displayed distinct patterns of seasonality paralleling those of wildland bees, with some species exhibiting extended seasons. Differential bee visitation patterns are common between individual floral resources. The effective monitoring of bee populations requires an understanding of this variability. To investigate the patterns and trends in urban resource usage, the foraging of the community of bees visiting Tecoma stans resources in three tropical dry forest cities in Costa Rica was studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera: Syrphidae
    This is a repository copy of The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae).. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80035/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Penney, HD, Hassall, C orcid.org/0000-0002-3510-0728, Skevington, JH et al. (2 more authors) (2014) The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). The American Naturalist, 183 (2). pp. 281-289. ISSN 0003-0147 https://doi.org/10.1086/674612 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)1 Heather D. Penney, Christopher Hassall, Jeffrey H. Skevington, Brent Lamborn & Thomas N. Sherratt Abstract Palatable (Batesian) mimics of unprofitable models could use behavioral mimicry to compensate for the ease with which they can be visually discriminated, or to augment an already close morphological resemblance.
    [Show full text]
  • Listing Proposal for Mccown's Longspur
    Listing Proposal for McCown’s Longspur (Rhynchophanes mccownii) in Nebraska Photo by Shawn Billerman Prepared by Melissa J. Panella and Joel G. Jorgensen Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Lincoln, Nebraska April 2018 Introduction The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (hereafter, Commission) is authorized under the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (NESCA; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-801 to 37-811) to determine what species should be placed on the list of threatened or endangered species maintained under the act. Species that are listed as threatened or endangered federally are automatically placed on the state’s list of threatened or endangered species; however, there are additional unlisted species whose continued existence within our state is at- risk and who are candidates for state listing. The Commission is obligated to conduct a review of species when monitoring data or emerging issues indicate concern. In 2017, Commission staff undertook a review of the state’s wildlife, including plants, to determine whether any species warranted placement on the list or whether any species currently listed as threated or endangered should be removed from the list. The last full review and revision of the list occurred in 2000. The purpose of the current statewide review is to maintain an accurate list of threatened and endangered species, based on the best information available, to help the Commission complete its mission of effectively conserving the wildlife resources of Nebraska. Over the last several months, Wildlife Division staff received input from species’ experts, conducted extensive literature reviews, and coordinated with the Commission’s Fisheries and Planning and Programming divisions to develop a list of species to consider for listing action.
    [Show full text]
  • Kachemak Bay Birds Checklist
    LEGEND SPECIES Sp Su F W Status SPECIES Sp Su F W Status SPECIES Sp Su F W Status __Greater Scaup C C C C rmb __Red-tailed Hawk C C C - sb Laridae - Gulls & Terns C Common - Easily found in small to large numbers in __Lesser Scaup U - U - m __Rough-legged Hawk U U U - sb __Franklin’s Gull - A - - v appropriate habitat. __Steller’s Eider C R C C w __Golden Eagle R R R A s __Black-headed Gull - A - - v __Spectacled Eider - - - A v Falconidae - Falcons __Bonaparte’s Gull C C C R sb U Uncommon - Occasionally, but not always, found in small __King Eider R R R R w __American Kestrel R R R - m __Black-tailed Gull - A - - v numbers with some effort in appropriate habitat. __Common Eider C C C U rb __Merlin U C R R sb __Mew Gull C C C C rb __Harlequin Duck C C C C rb __Gyrfalcon R R R R w __Ring-billed Gull A - - A v R Rare - occurs in very small numbers or in a very limited __Surf Scoter C C C C rm __Peregrine Falcon U U R R sb __California Gull - - A - v number of sites and may not be found every year or even with __White-winged Scoter C C C C rm Rallidae - Rails, Coots & Gallinules __Herring Gull C C C C r concentrated effort. There are more than a few records of __Black Scoter C C C C rmb __American Coot - - A - v __Heermann’s Gull - A - - v these species in appropriate habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • One with Nature
    SFU | Laboratory Landscape | proposal Josie Dawson, Phoebe Huang, Lori Lai 1. OVERVIEW One with Nature One with Nature is an interactive installation piece that subverts conventional notions around what “urban wilderness” entails and the dichotomy between nature and city. The piece asks viewers to question the carefully maintained quality of urban green spaces that reFlect humanistic expectations oF what nature should be, resulting in contrived attempts at preservation and romanticization oF normal ecological processes. Through human modification of the space, nature is domesticized. This piece will integrate impermanent and staged interventions at various sites, which will recontextualize Stanley Park as a site For investigation that encourages pedestrians to think deeply about humanistic alterations to, what may seem to be, “The Wilderness”. The rearranging oF preconceived perceptions about Stanley Park will attempt to disrupt typical understandings of our treasured green space and reconnect the public to knowledge and histories that contributed to the park as we know it, today. 2. RESEARCH AND PROCESS During the initial stages oF our proJect, we developed our main topic in attempts to explore the socially constructed aspects oF nature in relation to Stanley Park both as an urban space For recreational leisure and a segregated space oF wilderness conservation and constructed biodiversity. Our research began by identiFying the characteristics oF urban parks, their signiFicance as a public space and Finally our relationship with parks as a site For leisure. In North America, the creation of parks stems from the practice of upholding natural spaces within European landscapes. It's purpose is to be a pleasurable symbol oF taste and wealth but most signiFicantly an essential element For a good quality of liFe.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Odonata of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area
    2012. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 121(1):54–61 A SURVEY OF ODONATA OF THE PATOKA RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND MANAGEMENT AREA Donald L. Batema* and Amanda Bellian: Department of Chemistry, Environmental Studies Program, University of Evansville, 1800 Lincoln Avenue, Evansville, IN 47722 USA Lindsey Landowski: Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Puxico, MO. 63960 USA ABSTRACT. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area (hereafter Patoka River Refuge or the Refuge) represents one of the largest intact bottomland hardwood forests in southern Indiana, with meandering oxbows, marshes, ponds, managed moist-soil units, and constructed wetlands that provide diverse and suitable habitat for wildlife. Refuge personnel strive to protect, restore, and manage this bottomland hardwood ecosystem and associated habitats for a variety of wildlife. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) lists many species of management priority (McCoy 2008), but Odonata are not included, even though they are known to occur on the Refuge. The absence of Odonata from the CCP is the result of lack of information about this ecologically important group of organisms. Therefore, we conducted a survey, from May to October 2009, to document their presence, with special attention being paid to rare, threatened, and endangered species. A total of 43 dragonfly and damselfly species were collected and identified. No threatened or endangered species were found on the Refuge, but three species were found that are considered imperiled in Indiana based on Nature Serve Ranks (Stein 2002). Additionally, 19 new odonate records were documented for Pike County, Indiana. The results of this survey will be used by Refuge personnel to assist in management decisions and to help establish priorities for the Patoka River Refuge activities and land acquisition goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy of Trees Excerpt
    l e g a c y o f t r e e s l e g a c y o f t r e e s Purposeful Wandering in Vancouver’s Stanley Park Nina Shoroplova Copyright © 2020 Nina Shoroplova Foreword copyright © 2020 Bill Stephen All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, audio recording, or otherwise—without the written permission of the publisher or a licence from Access Copyright, Toronto, Canada. Heritage House Publishing Company Ltd. heritagehouse.ca Cataloguing information available from Library and Archives Canada 978-1-77203-303-8 (PBK) 978-1-77203-304-5 (EBOOK) Edited by Marial Shea Proofread by Grace Yaginuma Index by Martin Gavin Cover, interior book design, and maps by Jacqui Thomas Cover photographs: Andrew Dunlop / iStockphoto.com ( front), zennie / iStockphoto.com (back) Frontipiece photograph: Milan Rademakers / shutterstock.com Interior colour photographs by Nina Shoroplova Interior historical photographs are from the City of Vancouver Archives unless otherwise noted The interior of this book was produced on FSC®-certified, acid-free paper, processed chlorine-free, and printed with vegetable-based inks. Heritage House gratefully acknowledges that the land on which we live and work is within the traditional territories of the Lkwungen (Esquimalt and Songhees), Malahat, Pacheedaht, Scia’new, T’Sou-ke, and WSÁNEĆ (Pauquachin, Tsartlip, Tsawout, and Tseycum) Peoples. We also acknowledge that Stanley Park, the subject of this book, is located on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Bees and belonging: Pesticide detection for wild bees in California agriculture and sense of belonging for undergraduates in a mentorship program Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8z91q49s Author Ward, Laura True Publication Date 2020 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Bees and belonging: Pesticide detection for wild bees in California agriculture and sense of belonging for undergraduates in a mentorship program By Laura T Ward A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Nicholas J. Mills, Chair Professor Erica Bree Rosenblum Professor Eileen A. Lacey Fall 2020 Bees and belonging: Pesticide detection for wild bees in California agriculture and sense of belonging for undergraduates in a mentorship program © 2020 by Laura T Ward Abstract Bees and belonging: Pesticide detection for wild bees in California agriculture and sense of belonging for undergraduates in a mentorship program By Laura T Ward Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California, Berkeley Professor Nicholas J. Mills, Chair This dissertation combines two disparate subjects: bees and belonging. The first two chapters explore pesticide exposure for wild bees and honey bees visiting crop and non-crop plants in northern California agriculture. The final chapter utilizes surveys from a mentorship program as a case study to analyze sense of belonging among undergraduates. The first chapter of this dissertation explores pesticide exposure for wild bees and honey bees visiting sunflower crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Trends in Bumble Bee Health
    EN65CH11_Cameron ARjats.cls December 18, 2019 20:52 Annual Review of Entomology Global Trends in Bumble Bee Health Sydney A. Cameron1,∗ and Ben M. Sadd2 1Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA; email: [email protected] 2School of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61790, USA; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020. 65:209–32 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on Bombus, pollinator, status, decline, conservation, neonicotinoids, pathogens October 14, 2019 The Annual Review of Entomology is online at Abstract ento.annualreviews.org Bumble bees (Bombus) are unusually important pollinators, with approx- https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011118- imately 260 wild species native to all biogeographic regions except sub- 111847 Saharan Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. As they are vitally important in Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. natural ecosystems and to agricultural food production globally, the increase Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020.65:209-232. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org All rights reserved in reports of declining distribution and abundance over the past decade ∗ Corresponding author has led to an explosion of interest in bumble bee population decline. We Access provided by University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign on 02/11/20. For personal use only. summarize data on the threat status of wild bumble bee species across bio- geographic regions, underscoring regions lacking assessment data. Focusing on data-rich studies, we also synthesize recent research on potential causes of population declines. There is evidence that habitat loss, changing climate, pathogen transmission, invasion of nonnative species, and pesticides, oper- ating individually and in combination, negatively impact bumble bee health, and that effects may depend on species and locality.
    [Show full text]
  • Bumble Bees in Montana
    Bumble Bees in Montana by Amelia C. Dolan, Middle School Specialist at Athlos Academies, Boise, ID and former MSU Graduate Student; Casey M. Delphia, Research Scientist, Departments of Ecology and LRES; and Lauren M. Kerzicnik, Insect Diagnostician and Assistant IPM Specialist Bumble bees are important native pollinators in wildlands and agricultural systems. Creating habitat to support bumble bees in yards and gardens can MontGuide be easy and is a great way to get involved in native bee conservation. MT201611AG New 7/16 BUMBLE BEES ARE IMPORTANT NATIVE Bumble bees are one group of bees that are able to pollinators in wildlands and agricultural systems. They “buzz pollinate,” which is important for certain types are easily recognized by their large size and colorful, hairy of plants such as blueberries and tomatoes. Within bodies. Queens are active in the spring and workers can the flowers of these types of plants, pollen is held in be seen throughout the summer into early fall. Creating small tube-like anthers (i.e. poricidal anthers), and is habitat to support bumble bees in yards and gardens can not released unless the anthers are vibrated. Bumble be easy and is a great way to get involved in native bee bees buzz pollinate by landing on the flower, grabbing conservation. the anthers with their jaws (i.e. mandibles), and then Bumble bees are in the family Apidae (includes honey quickly vibrating their flight muscles. The vibration bees, bumble bees, carpenter bees, cuckoo bees, sunflower effect is similar to an electric toothbrush and the pollen bees, and digger bees) and the is released.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Dragonflies As Common, Flexible, and Charismatic Subjects for Teaching the Scientific Process
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Faculty Research & Creative Activity Biological Sciences 1-1-2007 Using dragonflies sa common, flexible, and charismatic subjects for teaching the scientific process Paul Switzer Eastern Illinois University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/bio_fac Part of the Behavior and Ethology Commons, Entomology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Switzer, P.V. (2007). Using dragonflies as common, flexible, and charismatic subjects for teaching the scientific process. The American Biology Teacher 69(3): 158-162. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Research & Creative Activity by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. as Common, Flexible & Charismatic Subjects Using forDragonflies Teaching the Scientific Process P AUL V. S WI T ZER See this article with its beautiful images in full color online at: http://www.nabt.org/sites/S1/File/pdf/069-03-0158.pdf. iology laboratories are usually designed around eat other invertebrates in the jar . Adults are a bit more wary, convenientB and available subjects . For example, for animal yet if students avoid sudden movements or approaches, laboratories Daphnia magna, Drosophila melanogaster, frogs, they can get within inches of many common species . rats, and mice are common animals that are relatively easy Capture requires no more exotic equipment than either to obtain, relatively cheap, and consequently lend them- aerial (for adults) or aquatic (for larvae) nets, and adults can selves well to laboratory experimentation .
    [Show full text]