DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of Management Objectives for Waterfowl and Shorebirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development of Management Objectives for Waterfowl and Shorebirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Development of Management Objectives for Waterfowl and Shorebirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Charles R. Loesch Daniel J. Twedt Kimberly Tripp William C. Hunter Mark S. Woodrey Abstract—The goal of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Ven- Waterfowl ______________________ ture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide sufficient habitat to support 4.3 million wintering ducks Long-term declines in waterfowl populations prompted and 1.0 million wintering geese annually. Under the assumption the development of the North American Waterfowl that the amount of foraging habitat is the primary limitation to Management Plan (NAWMP) during the early 1980s. The supporting waterfowl population goals in the Mississippi Alluvial NAWMP identified the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) as Valley (MAV), a habitat objective to make available 285,000 ha of one of several regions in North America containing habitat waterfowl foraging habitat is divided among seven states. This vital to the recovery of waterfowl populations. The Lower habitat objective is further divided between public and private Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) was organized in ownership and among three habitat types: Bottomland hardwood the late 1980s to develop a strategy for conserving, manag- forest, moist-soil sites, and agricultural fields. Management objec- ing, and restoring wetland habitats that support wintering tives for shorebirds within the MAV which provide foraging habitat waterfowl populations in a joint venture area that includes for 0.5 million shorebirds during their southward migration have the MAV. Midwinter Waterfowl Inventory data, harvest been tentatively established. Several as yet unverified assumptions data from 1970 to 1979, and population goals set in the were used in establishing these objectives; consequently, we caution NAWMP were used to set state-specific waterfowl popula- that the objectives are subject to revision as the assumptions are tion goals. The overall goal for the MAV is to provide habitat tested. We assumed that 0.5 million shorebirds move through the to support 4.3 million wintering ducks and 1.0 million MAV during late summer and fall, each foraging for an average of wintering geese annually. 10 days. During this migration period, foraging shorebirds are Assuming that foraging habitat is limiting for waterfowl assumed to require sufficient forage to gain 1 g of biomass per day, wintering in the MAV, we calculated the energetic needs of in addition to their basal metabolic needs. Given an invertebrate waterfowl, winter mortality rates, length of the wintering food supply that provides 17.6 kj • g-1, we calculated that an average period, and the energy available in various foraging habi- 45 g shorebird requires about 8 g of invertebrate forage per day. tats. Then we incorporated the population goal to determine Further assuming that each ha of managed shorebird habitat can that approximately 285,000 ha of foraging habitat are needed provide 20 kg of invertebrate food resources available to shorebirds, to support wintering waterfowl in the MAV. Within each we extrapolated a need for 2000 ha of shorebird foraging habitat. We state, habitat goals are divided between public and private suggest that the bulk of this foraging habitat be provided on public ownership and three main foraging habitats: Bottomland lands and that it be distributed throughout the MAV. hardwood forest, moist-soil sites, and agricultural fields. Availability of waterfowl foraging habitat depends on ad- equate precipitation and resultant ponding or overbank flooding, and water-control infrastructure (i.e., levees, dikes, water-control structures, pumps) to facilitate flooding. The rationale and methodology used to develop these waterfowl population goals and habitat objectives for waterfowl have been published previously (Lower Mississippi Valley Joint In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry, Venture Management Board 1990; Loesch and others 1994). eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight plan- Refer to these documents for details and clarification of ning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S. waterfowl goals and objectives. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Charles R. Loesch, USFWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, 3425 Miriam Ave. Bismarck, ND 58501. Daniel J. Twedt, USGS Patuxent Shorebirds _____________________ Wildlife Research Center, 2524 South Frontage Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Kimberly Tripp and William C. Hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Although some shorebirds breed (Robbins and others Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345. Mark S. Woodrey, Missis- 1986) or winter (Ouchley 1992) in the MAV, many more sippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 111 North Jefferson Street, Jackson, MS 39201. shorebirds, both total individuals and species, use this floodplain as a migratory corridor between breeding areas to 8 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 the north and wintering areas to the south (Helmers 1994; Establishing Shorebird Population Twedt and others 1998) (table 1). Thus, we feel that the greatest conservation need for shorebirds within the MAV is Goals _________________________ foraging habitat during migration. Neither census data nor any specific estimates of shore- Typically, winter floodwater that recedes during early bird populations moving through the MAV during south- spring and the agricultural practice of shallow-flooding rice ward migration are available. To establish such an estimate fields during late spring provide abundant shallow-water and thereby set a tentative population goal, we examined and mudflat foraging habitat within the MAV during north- data from International Shorebird Survey sites (Manomet ward migration. During southward migration, however, in Bird Observatory 1993) and consulted shorebird biologists late summer and fall, naturally occurring floodwater is rare (e.g., D. L. Helmers and B. A. Harrington) knowledgeable of because of seasonally low precipitation. Also, agricultural migration patterns and continental population estimates fields are purposefully kept dry at this time to facilitate (Howe and others 1989). Based on these sources, we have harvest of crops. Therefore, the period from 15 July through assumed that about 0.5 million shorebirds (table 1) move 30 September has tentatively been identified as the time through the MAV during fall migration. Maintenance of this interval when foraging habitat for migrating shorebirds is number is our population goal. This is a relatively unambi- least available. Our primary conservation objective is to tious effort to maintain the assumed status quo, and should ensure that adequate shallow-water habitat is available in be reexamined within the context of evolving continent-wide the MAV to meet or exceed the foraging requirements of goals for shorebird populations. shorebirds during their southward migration. Table 1—Shorebird species, mass, and hypothesized abundance during southward migration through the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Manomet Bird Observatory 1993). Common name Scientific name Mass (g) Abundance Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 50 171 American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 150 232 Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus 125 778 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 150 2,374 Dowitcher species Limnodromus spp. 125 2,242 Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 75 3,310 Red Knot Calidris canutus 140 162 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 60 121,077 White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 40 221 Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 40 690 Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 25 151,119 Dunlin Calidris alpina 35 7,866 Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 30 37,713 Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 30 3,382 Sanderling Calidris alba 60 5,052 Calidris spp. (‘peeps’) Calidris spp. 30 32,286 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 200 39 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 125 3,235 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 75 21,120 Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 60 2,608 Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 175 92 Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 125 237 Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis 50 964 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 40 4,112 Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 150 769 American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica 130 449 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 50 91,838 Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 35 4,765 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 40 121 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 140 405 Other shorebirds 40 571 mean weighted mass = 45 total = 500,000 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 9 Estimating Forage Needs of Determining Habitat Requirements Shorebirds During Migration ______ for Migrating Shorebirds _________ Although data on the composition of species moving through For the purpose of proposing the amount of habitat re- the MAV are fragmentary, some information for the MAV quired to support migrating shorebirds, we have assumed during southward migration is available from International that habitat will be provided primarily in the form of shallow Shorebird Survey sites as well as from local study sites (e.g., water managed to create optimal foraging depths for shore- Reid and others 1983; Ouchley 1992; Twedt and others birds and about 2 g of benthic invertebrates are available per 1998). These data indicate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long-Billed Curlew Distributions in Intertidal Habitats: Scale-Dependent Patterns Ryan L
    LONG-BILLED CURLEW DISTRIBUTIONS IN INTERTIDAL HABITATS: SCALE-DEPENDENT PATTERNS RYAN L. MATHIS, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, Cali- fornia 95521 (current address: National Wild Turkey Federation, P. O. Box 1050, Arcata, California 95518) MARK A. ColwELL, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521; [email protected] LINDA W. LEEMAN, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 (current address: EDAW, Inc., 2022 J. St., Sacramento, California 95814) THOMAS S. LEEMAN, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 (current address: Environmental Science Associates, 8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95826) ABSTRACT. Key ecological insights come from understanding a species’ distribu- tion, especially across several spatial scales. We studied the distribution (uniform, random, or aggregated) at low tide of nonbreeding Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) at three spatial scales: within individual territories (1–8 ha), in the Elk River estuary (~50 ha), and across tidal habitats of Humboldt Bay (62 km2), Cali- fornia. During six baywide surveys, 200–300 Long-billed Curlews were aggregated consistently in certain areas and were absent from others, suggesting that foraging habitats varied in quality. In the Elk River estuary, distributions were often (73%) uniform as curlews foraged at low tide, although patterns tended toward random (27%) when more curlews were present during late summer and autumn. Patterns of predominantly uniform distribution across the estuary were a consequence of ter- ritoriality. Within territories, eight Long-billed Curlews most often (75%) foraged in a manner that produced a uniform distribution; patterns tended toward random (16%) and aggregated (8%) when individuals moved over larger areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List
    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List The target species list (species to be surveyed) should not change over the course of the study, therefore determining the target species list is an important project design task. Because waterbirds, including shorebirds, can occur in very high numbers in a census area, it is often not possible to count all species without compromising the quality of the survey data. For the basic shorebird census program (protocol 1), we recommend counting all shorebirds (sub-Order Charadrii), all raptors (hawks, falcons, owls, etc.), Common Ravens, and American Crows. This list of species is available on our field data forms, which can be downloaded from this site, and as a drop-down list on our online data entry form. If a very rare species occurs on a shorebird area survey, the species will need to be submitted with good documentation as a narrative note with the survey data. Project goals that could preclude counting all species include surveys designed to search for color-marked birds or post- breeding season counts of age-classed bird to obtain age ratios for a species. When conducting a census, you should identify as many of the shorebirds as possible to species; sometimes, however, this is not possible. For example, dowitchers often cannot be separated under censuses conditions, and at a distance or under poor lighting, it may not be possible to distinguish some species such as small Calidris sandpipers. We have provided codes for species combinations that commonly are reported on censuses. Combined codes are still species-specific and you should use the code that provides as much information as possible about the potential species combination you designate.
    [Show full text]
  • SGCN) - Amphibians
    Maine 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision Report Date: June 13, 2014 Priority 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) - Amphibians High Regional ConservationPriority USFWS Birds of ConservationUSFWS ConcernBirdsof ClimateChange Vulnerability Northeast Odonate Assessment NortheastOdonate RecentSignificant Decline AmericanFisheries Society North American WaterbirdNorthAmerican RediscoveryPotential ShorebirdNorthAtlantic UnderstudiedTaxa Risk Of ExtirpationRiskOf Regional Endemic ShorebirdNational Partners In Flight Partners In MESA Proposed MESA FederalStatus IUCN Red List IUCN NatureServe State Status State Criteria1 Criteria2 Criteria3 Criteria4 Criteria5 Criteria6 Criteria7 COSEWIC NEWDTC NEPARC RSGCN ASMFC CommonName ScientificName Anura ( frogs and toads ) Northern Leopard Lithobates pipiens X X X Frog Mink Frog Lithobates X septentrionalis Caudata ( salamanders ) Blue-spotted Ambystoma laterale X X X Salamander Northern Spring Gyrinophilus X X Salamander porphyriticus porphyriticus Risk of Extirpation: Critically Endangered [CR]; Endangered [E] or [EN]; Threatened [T]; Vulnerable [VU]; Candidate [C]; Proposed Endangered [PE]; Proposed Threatened [PT] Amphibians Group Page 1 of 1 DRAFT Priority 2 SGCN Report - Page 1 of 33 Maine 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision Report Date: June 13, 2014 Priority 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) - Aquatic And Terrestrial Snails High Regional ConservationPriority USFWS Birds of ConservationUSFWS ConcernBirdsof ClimateChange Vulnerability Northeast Odonate Assessment NortheastOdonate
    [Show full text]
  • List of Species Likely to Benefit from Marine Protected Areas in The
    Appendix C: Species Likely to Benefit from MPAs andSpecial-Status Species This appendix contains two sections: C.1 Species likely to benefit from marine protected areas in the MLPA South Coast Study Region C.2 Special status species likely to occur in the MLPA South Coast Study Region C.1 Species Likely to Benefit From MPAs The Marine Life Protection Act requires that species likely to benefit from MPAs be identified; identification of these species will contribute to the identification of habitat areas that will support achieving the goals of the MLPA. The California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (DFG 2008) includes a broad list of species likely to benefit from protection within MPAs. The master plan also indicates that regional lists will be developed by the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT) for each study region described in the master plan. A list of species likely to benefit for the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception in Santa Barbara County to the California/Mexico border in San Diego County) has been compiled and approved by the SAT. The SAT used a scoring system to develop the list of species likely to benefit. This scoring system was developed to provide a metric that is more useful when comparing species than a simple on/off the list metric. Each species was scored using “1” to indicate a criterion was met or “0” to indicate a criterion was not met. Species on the list meet the following filtering criteria: they occur in the study region, they must score a “1” for either
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebrate Diversity Benefiting from Carrion Provided by Pumas And
    Biological Conservation 215 (2017) 123–131 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Short communication Vertebrate diversity benefiting from carrion provided by pumas and other subordinate, apex felids MARK L. Mark Elbroch⁎, Connor O'Malley, Michelle Peziol, Howard B. Quigley Panthera, 8 West 40th Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Carrion promotes biodiversity and ecosystem stability, and large carnivores provide this resource throughout the Biodiversity year. In particular, apex felids subordinate to other carnivores contribute more carrion to ecological commu- Carnivores nities than other predators. We measured vertebrate scavenger diversity at puma (Puma concolor) kills in the Food webs Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and utilized a model-comparison approach to determine what variables influ- Scavenging enced scavenger diversity (Shannon's H) at carcasses. We documented the highest vertebrate scavenger diversity of any study to date (39 birds and mammals). Scavengers represented 10.9% of local birds and 28.3% of local mammals, emphasizing the diversity of food-web vectors supported by pumas, and the positive contributions of pumas and potentially other subordinate, apex felids to ecological stability. Scavenger diversity at carcasses was most influenced by the length of time the carcass was sampled, and the biological variables, temperature and prey weight. Nevertheless, diversity was relatively consistent across carcasses. We also identified six additional stalk- and-ambush carnivores weighing > 20 kg, that feed on prey larger than themselves, and are subordinate to other predators. Together with pumas, these seven felids may provide distinctive ecological functions through their disproportionate production of carrion and subsequent contributions to biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Shorebirds
    Photo: Davor Desancic Davor Photo: Happy birding! Happy viewing shorebirds. viewing Bay shoreline parks provide such resources along along resources such provide parks shoreline Bay human world with which we share this planet. planet. this share we which with world human opportunities for for opportunities where abundant food resources exist. Our East East Our exist. resources food abundant where thus essential to shorebird survival. shorebird to essential thus conservation and a desire to protect the non- the protect to desire a and conservation visitors with outstanding outstanding with visitors to travel in vast flocks and stop at feeding areas areas feeding at stop and flocks vast in travel to sites is essential to successful migration, and and migration, successful to essential is sites the natural world, and with it a dedication to to dedication a it with and world, natural the avocet habitats and provide provide and habitats which requires food. Migrating shorebirds tend tend shorebirds Migrating food. requires which Flyway. Protection of these important stopover stopover important these of Protection Flyway. find that you develop a sense of connection to to connection of sense a develop you that find American American California’s coastal coastal California’s Migratory flight requires large amounts of energy, energy, of amounts large requires flight Migratory the migratory route known as the Pacific Pacific the as known route migratory the that visit our East Bay shores each year. You may may You year. each shores Bay East our visit that crucial sections of of sections crucial Spend time getting to know the varied shorebirds shorebirds varied the know to getting time Spend Rest Stops Rest parks that both protect protect both that parks the use of a spotting scope and tripod.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats at Risk
    CHAPTER TWO New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats at Risk Abstract All wildlife species native to New Hampshire were eligible for identification as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), including game species, non-game species, fish and marine animals. A number of species prioritization lists and expert review processes were used to determine which species should be included as SGCN. A total of 169 species are identified as SGCN in the 2015 Wildlife Action Plan, of which 27 species are listed as state endangered and 14 listed as state threatened. In the 2005 Wildlife Action Plan 118 species were listed as SGCN, and all but 13 of the 2005 SGCN are included in the 2015 revision. The Wildlife Action Plan also identifies 27 distinct habitats that support both common species and species of greatest conservation need. By identifying and protecting high quality examples of all of New Hampshire’s natural communities, all of the state’s native wildlife species will have access to intact habitats. Overview New Hampshire is home to over 500 vertebrate species and thousands of invertebrates. Many of these are common species that thrive in the state’s diverse landscapes and provide enjoyment through wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and trapping. This chapter describes the process of determining which species are in trouble – declining in numbers, squeezed into smaller patches of habitat, and threatened by a host of issues. These species are designated as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). They include not only species on the NH Endangered Species list, but also those that are not yet seriously threatened.
    [Show full text]
  • Migratory Shorebird Guild
    Supplemental Volume: Species of Conservation Concern SC SWAP 2015 Migratory Shorebird Guild American Avocet (Recurvirostra Americana) Ruddy Turnstone (Aenaria interpres) American Golden Plover (Pluvialis dominica) Sanderling (Calidris alba) Baird’s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) Dunlin (Calidris alpine Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis) Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago gallinago delicate) Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia) Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritime) Wimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Contributors (2005): Felicia Sanders (SCDNR) and Thomas Murphy (SCDNR) Reviewed and Edited (2012): Felicia Sanders (SCDNR) DESCRIPTION Taxonomy and Basic Description The shorebird guild is composed of birds in the Charadrii suborder. Shorebirds in South Carolina represent 3
    [Show full text]
  • Greater White-Fronted Goose Greater Yellowlegs Snow Goose Willet
    Greater White-fronted Goose Greater Yellowlegs Snow Goose Willet Ross's Goose Lesser Yellowlegs Canada Goose Least Sandpiper Wood Duck Pectoral Sandpiper Gadwall Wilson's Snipe American Wigeon American Woodcock American Black Duck Bonaparte's Gull Mallard Ring-billed Gull Blue-winged Teal Least Tern Northern Shoveler Mourning Dove Northern Pintail Common Ground Dove Green-winged Teal Yellow-billed Cuckoo Canvasback Barn Owl Ring-necked Duck Great Horned Owl Lesser Scaup Barred Owl Hooded Merganser Eastern Screech Owl White-winged Scoter Short-eared Owl Wild Turkey Common Nighthawk Northern Bobwhite Chimney Swift Pied-billed Grebe Ruby-throated Hummingbird American White Pelican Belted Kingfisher Double-crested Cormorant Red-headed Woodpecker Anhinga Red-bellied Woodpecker American Bittern Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Great Blue Heron Downy Woodpecker Great Egret Hairy Woodpecker Snowy Egret Northern Flicker Little Blue Heron Pileated Woodpecker Tricolored Heron Olive-sided Flycatcher Cattle Egret Eastern Wood-Pewee Green Heron Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Acadian Flycatcher Roseate Spoonbill Willow Flycatcher Turkey Vulture Least Flycatcher Black Vulture Eastern Phoebe Mississippi Kite Great Crested Flycatcher Bald Eagle Eastern Kingbird Northern Harrier Loggerhead Shrike Sharp-shinned Hawk White-eyed Vireo Cooper's Hawk Yellow-throated Vireo Red-shouldered Hawk Warbling Vireo Broad-winged Hawk Red-eyed Vireo Red-tailed Hawk Blue Jay Rough-legged Hawk American Crow Golden Eagle Fish Crow American Kestrel Horned Lark
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife
    Natural Heritage Willet & Endangered Species Tringa semipalmata Program State Status: None www.mass.gov/nhesp Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife SPECIES DESCRIPTION: The Willet is a large, brownish-grey sandpiper with long legs, a thick, straight bill, and a short, squared-off tail. During flight, they display a bold, broad, white wing-stripe bordered in black that runs across the primary and secondary feathers, and a white rump. On the ground they may be confused with other large shorebirds, such as the Whimbrel and Greater Yellowlegs. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE: The Willet was extirpated from Massachusetts during the 1800s due to hunting pressure, but the population has shown a strong recovery since the enactment of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Over the last several decades, the Willet has undergone a strong population increase in Massachusetts and can be found nesting along much of the state’s coastline. Willets have an extensive wintering THREATS: The Willet’s population may be negatively range that includes coastal areas from the southern affected by the loss of nesting and wintering habitats, United States to South America. contaminants and pollutants which accumulate in coastal sediments, and collisions with structures and objects. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: The Eastern population of the Willet (there is a disjunct breeding population of Willet in the western part of the country) occupies open REFERENCES: beaches, marshes, mudflats and rocky coastal zones Lowther, P.E., H.D. Douglas, III, and C.L. Gratto-Trevor. along the Atlantic coast. They breed in salt marshes, 2001. Willet (Tringa semipalmata), The Birds of North barrier islands, and barrier beaches, laying an average of America Online (A.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Center Pre-Trip Activities, Grades K-2 Table of Contents
    Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Center Pre-Trip Activities, Grades K-2 Table of Contents Title Page Introduction to the Hayward Shoreline 3 Everybody Needs a Home 4 Whose Clues? 5 Habitracks 7 Vocabulary 9 Plants of the Hayward Shoreline 12 Animals of the Hayward Shoreline 13 Common Spring and Summer Shoreline Birds 14 Common Fall and Winter Shoreline Birds 15 Bibliography of Bay-Related Sources 16 Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Center 4901 Breakwater Ave., Hayward, CA, 94545 510-670-7270 www.haywardrec.org/hayshore [email protected] 1 Pre-Trip Activities, Grades K-2 Introduction to the Hayward Shoreline History: The Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Center opened in 1986 as a place where school groups and the general public could learn about the ecology, history, and significance of the wetlands surrounding the San Francisco Bay. We call this a “salt marsh”, but in fact these wetlands consist of a complex set of salt, fresh, brackish and tidal ponds. From 1856 through the 1940s this area was used for salt production. In 1980, managers began removing dikes, restoring tidal action to an area that was originally a mixture of tidal wetlands and associated uplands. Natural History: A marsh is where water and land come together. The 1800 acres of marsh at the Hayward Shoreline constitute the largest section of the wetland habitats in the San Francisco Bay. Wetlands offer a wide diversity of life as both a nursery for sea life and a rich food source for the plants and animals that live there. There are many plants and animals that call the Hayward Shoreline their home.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Behavior and Diet of the Long-Billed Curlew and Willet
    FEEDING BEHAVIOR AND DIET OF THE LONG-BILLED CURLEW AND WILLET LYNNE E. STENZEL, HARRIET R. HUBER, AND GARY W. PAGE To study shorebird feeding ecology, most people collect birds and ex- amine stomach contents although in a few instances regurgitated pellets (Hibbert-Ware and Ruttledge 1944, Swennen 1971) or observations of feeding birds (Baker and Baker 1973) have been used. In this studywe used both observations and regurgitated pellets to examine the feeding behavior and the diet of the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) and the Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) on Bolinas Lagoon, in California. Our objective was to find a suitable method for studying shorebird diets without sacrificing the birds. In the literature we found little information on the diet of the Long-billed Curlew, and data on the Willet in California that we found are limited to the examination of 21 stomachs (Reeder 1951, Recher 1966, Anderson 1970). There is little information on the feeding behavior of either species. We felt, therefore, that any information we could add on the feeding behavior and diet of these shorebirds would be useful. METHODS Bolinas Lagoon is a shallow 570-ha estuary 24 km northwest of San Francisco, California. High hills, marshy pastures, and the Seadrift sand spit surround this wedge-shaped estuary except for a narrow opening to the ocean on the southwest side (Fig. 1). Pine Gulch Creek drains into the estuary year round and is the main source of the estuarys’ fresh water. Kent Island is a @ha island within the estuary. A large part of Kent Island and the Pine Gulch Creek delta are salt marsh where the chief plant species are Salicornia virginica and Spartina foliosa.
    [Show full text]