DOCSLIB.ORG

EASTERN MEADOWLARKS NESTING in Rangelands and CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM FIELDS in KANSAS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EASTERN MEADOWLARKS NESTING in Rangelands and CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM FIELDS in KANSAS J. Field Ornithol., 67(2):222-235 EASTERN MEADOWLARKS NESTING IN RANGElANDS AND CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM FIELDS IN KANSAS DIANE A. Gv•c•o• 1 Departmentof Range and Wildlife TexasTech University Lubbock, Texas 79409 USA KEVIN E. CHURCH Wildlife ResearchSection Nebraska Game and Parks Division Lincoln, Nebraska USA LOREN M. SMITH Departmentof Range and Wildlife TexasTech University Lubbock, Texas 79409 USA Abstract.---EasternMeadowlark (Sturndla magna)nesting habitat was studied to make man- agementrecommendations for fields enrolled in a federal land retirement program.We comparedavailable microhabitat, nest-site selection, and nest successon rangelandsand ConservationReserve Program (CRP) fields in easternKansas. Daily nest survivalrates and numbersfledged per femaledid not differ significantlybetween land-use types, but the power of thesetests was low. Predationwas the primary sourceof nest failure throughoutincuba- tion, hatching,and nestlingstages; abandonment, trampling, inviability, and unknowncauses alsowere importantduring incubation.Mowing CRP fieldswas a sourceof nest failure and alsoinduced adultsto abandonsome fields. CRP fieldshad a significantlyhigher percent, depth, and densityof litter cover;a taller herbaceouscanopy; less herbaceous cover; and more standingdead cover than rangelands.Differences in habitat structureindicate that CRP has increasedthe diversityof availablenesting habitats. Eastern Meadowlarks selected nestsites with significantlygreater litter cover,higher proportion of grass,more uncompacted litter, and more structuralhomogeneity than availableon randomplots. Delay of mowing and prescribedburning are recommendedto enhanceand maintainhabitat suitability for nestingEastern Meadowlarks in CRP fields. STURNELIA MAGNA ANIDANDO EN EXTENSIONES DE TIERRA Y TERRENOS DEL PROGRAMA DE RESERVAS DE CONSERVACI6N EN KANSAS Sinopsis.--Seestudi6 el habitatde anidamientode Sturneliamagna para producirrecomen- dacionesde manejo para terrenosenlistados en un programafederal de retraer fierras.Se compararonel 6xito de los nidos, el microhabitatdisponible ¾ la selecci6nde lugar para anidaren las extensionesde tierra ¾en terrenosdel Programade Reservasde Conservaci6n (PRC) en el estede Kansas.Ni las tasasdiarias de supervivenciade nido ni el ndmero de volantonespot hembravariaron significativamente entre terrenosde usodiferente, pero la potenciade la pruebaestadistica fu6 baja. La depredaci6nfu6 la causaprincipal de la mor- talidad en nidos durante las etapasde incubaci6n,eclosi6n ¾ de crecimientoen el nido, pero el abandono,el pisoteo,la infertilidad, ¾ otras causasdesconocidas tambi6n rueton importantesdurante la incubaci6n.Desyerbar los campos del PRC caus6mortandad de nidos • CurrentAddress: Department of Wildlifeand Fisheries, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007 USA. 222 Vol.67, No. 2 EasternMeadowlark Nesting [223 y tambifin indujo al abandono de los predios. Los terrenos del PRC tuvieron mayorespor- centaje,profundidad y densidadde cubiertade materiales,un mayordosel herbficeo, menos cubiertaherbacea y m/rscubierta erecta muerta que las extensionesde tierra. Las diferencias en la estructurade hfibitat indican que el PRC ha aumentado la diversidadde habitatsde anidamiento. Los individuosde Sturnellamagma seleccionaron lugaree de anidaje con una cubierta de materialessignificativamente mayor, mayor proporci6n de hierbas, materiales poco compactosy mayor homogeneidadestructural que laos disponiblesen parcelasfortui- tas. Se recomiendaretrasar el corte de cespedy de quema prescritapara estimulary man- tener la adecuidadde habitat para el anidaje de Sturnellamagma en los prediosdel PRC. The ConservationReserve Program (CRP) of the 1985 Food Security Act converted >14.3 million ha of highly erodible cropland in the United Statesto a variety of permanent cover typesfor 10 yr. In Kansas,>1.1 million ha were enrolled in CRP with >90% planted in native grasses (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1993). The CRP wasintended to accom- modatewildlife and agriculturalconcerns and mayprovide quality habitat for grasslandbird populations. Quality of CRP habitat has been evaluatedby comparingpasserine den- sitiesin CRP versuscropland (Johnsonand Schwartz1993) and by apply- ing Habitat SuitabilityIndex (HSI) models (Hays et al. 1989). Although thesestudies use practicalmethodologies for regional scales,the assump- tion that densityor HSI alone reflect habitat quality may not be valid (Van Horne 1983, Vickery et al. 1992). Severalstudies have used produc- tivity as an indicator of CRP habitat quality for game species(e.g., Ber- thelsen et al. 1990, Kantrud 1993). Given high use of CRP by passerines (johnson and Schwartz1993), reproductive successof non-game species also needs to be investigated. We assessedthe quality of habitat in CRP fields by comparing the re- productive ecology of Eastern Meadowlarks (Sturnella maffna) in CRP fields and grazed, native grassrangelands. These habitats had similar plant speciescomposition, but hayingand grazingwere not permitted in CRP. Our objectiveswere to: (1) compare Eastern Meadowlark nest suc- cessin CRP and rangeland habitats,(2) identify causesof nest failure, (3) compare nest-sitemicrohabitat selection between CRP fields and range- lands, and (4) examine the importance of microhabitat to nest success. METHODS Our study was conducted 10 km north of Emporia in Lyon County, Kansas(38ø30'N, 96ø20'W). Topography was gently rolling with elevations ranging from 323-466 m. Winter wheat, row crops,rangeland, and hay- fields Were primary land uses.Climate was continental averaging0 C in winter and 25 C in summer,with a 6-mo growingseason. Annual precip- itation rangedfrom 63-114 cm with 73% fallingfrom April throughSep- tember (U.S. Departmentof Agriculture,Soil ConservationService 1981). To minimize variabilityassociated with different CRP practices,we ex- amined conversionto native grassbecause it promoted vegetationwith which Eastern Meadowlarks evolved and was the most common practice in Kansas(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1993). We used three CRP fields in 1990 and added one field in 1991. Field size ranged from 18-24 224] D. A. Granforset al. J.Field Ornithol. Spring 1996 ha. Mowing, without removal of cut material, was conductedin mid-June 1990 and in previousyears to control noxious weeds. One field was mowed only in selectedstrips, and mowingwas completed in late August. Only one of the four CRP fields was mowed in mid-June of 1991. We used five rangeland sitesin 1990. Stockingrates were -<1.63 animal unit months (AUM)/ha (cow/calf) and field size was 14-63 ha. Range siteshad a history of spring burning, but were not burned in 1990. We used four range sites in 1991, but only one 1990 site was reused. This field was not burned in 1991 and was stocked with cows and calves at 0.54 AUM/ha. Three replacementrange sites(178-259 ha) were burned in April 1991 and stockedwith steersat 1.85-3.09 AUM/ha. CRP fields were planted in 1988 or 1989 with a mix of big bluestem (Andropogongerardi•), little bluestem ( Schizachyriumscoparium), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) , Indiangrass ( Sorghastrumnutans) , and switchgrass(Panicum virgatum). Cool-seasongrasses (Bromus spp.) also were common. The most common forbs were western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya)and mare'stail (Conyzacanadensis) in 1990 and lettuce (Lac- tucaspp.) and sweetclover(Melilotus spp.) in 1991. The abovenative grass species,tall dropseed(Sporobolus asper), and Kentuckybluegrass (Poa pra- tensis)were also characteristicof rangelands.Clumping of native grasses, which occurred in CRP fields, was prevented in rangelandsby grazing and burning. The most common forbs in rangeland were western rag- weed and Baldwin's ironweed (Vernonia baldwin•). Nest success.--Wecaptured female Eastern Meadowlarkswith mist nets and by night-lighting(Drewien et al. 1967) in April-June 1990 and 1991. We placed mist nets in areasof meadowlarkactivity and near nests.We moved nets within each field to avoid concentratingthe sample in one area. We night-lighted by walking through fields and dragging a rope to flush meadowlarks.We determined sex on the basisof plumage, bill color, and body size (Kemmerer 1981). We fitted femaleswith 2.5-g transmitters(-<3% body mass), each at- tached to the back with an elasticwing-loop harness.We obtained daily locationsby circling with a hand-held antenna systemto within 30-40 m of the radio-taggedbird. We found nestsby flushing femalesthat had the same location for >--2d. When we could not estimate incubation stage from the female's location record, we floated eggsto estimatehatch date (Westerskov1950). We also used any nests of unmarked birds that we found. When a radio-taggedfemale was off the nest, we checked the site to confirm nest status.We examined nests of unmarked birds about every third day.To prevent human-inducedpremature fledging, we did not visit nestsbetween the seventhand 12th day posthatch (Brown 1988). On the 13th day posthatch,we determinedif the attemptwas successful (>-1 nest- ling fledged; Nice 1957) by finding feather sheathsat the bottom of the nest (Roseberryand Klimstra1970). Successfulnests were alsocharacter- ized by an enlarged nest bowl and the presenceof fecal sacs.We consid- ered nests unsuccessful if feather sheaths were few or absent, or there Vol.67, No. 2 EasternMeadowlark Nesting [225 were signsof nest destruction.We placed nest lossesinto five categories: (1) depredated, (2) abandoned, (3) trampled, (4) inviable, and (5) un- known.Nests of radio-taggedbirds
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Loggerhead Shrike
    EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS: LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Grasslands Ecosystem Initiative Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center U.S. Geological Survey Jamestown, North Dakota 58401 This report is one in a series of literature syntheses on North American grassland birds. The need for these reports was identified by the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV), a part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The PPJV recently adopted a new goal, to stabilize or increase populations of declining grassland- and wetland-associated wildlife species in the Prairie Pothole Region. To further that objective, it is essential to understand the habitat needs of birds other than waterfowl, and how management practices affect their habitats. The focus of these reports is on management of breeding habitat, particularly in the northern Great Plains. Suggested citation: Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Loggerhead Shrike. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 19 pages. Species for which syntheses are available or are in preparation: American Bittern Grasshopper Sparrow Mountain Plover Baird’s Sparrow Marbled Godwit Henslow’s Sparrow Long-billed Curlew Le Conte’s Sparrow Willet Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Wilson’s Phalarope Vesper Sparrow Upland Sandpiper Savannah Sparrow Greater Prairie-Chicken Lark Sparrow Lesser Prairie-Chicken Field Sparrow Northern Harrier Clay-colored Sparrow Swainson’s Hawk Chestnut-collared Longspur Ferruginous Hawk McCown’s Longspur Short-eared Owl Dickcissel Burrowing Owl Lark Bunting Horned Lark Bobolink Sedge Wren Eastern Meadowlark Loggerhead Shrike Western Meadowlark Sprague’s Pipit Brown-headed Cowbird EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS: LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Jill A.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella Magna
    Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Breeding Eastern Meadowlarks are normally associated with Unglaciated Plateau (94 blocks), and Glaciated Plateau (69 grasslands such as lightly grazed pastures, hayfields, and re- blocks) regions. Other confirmation included observations of claimed strip mines. These fields may be devoid of woody adults carrying food for young in 96 blocks, 49 reports of recently vegetation or support scattered bushes and small trees. They also fledged young, 41 active nests, and distraction displays by adults regularly occupy fallow fields composed of mixed grasses and in 9 blocks. Most other records pertained to probable breeders, weeds, grassy rights–of–way along highways and railroads, primarily territorial males and pairs occupying suitable habitats. clover–alfalfa hayfields, and grassy fields bordering airports. When their populations were larger, breeding pairs were found in cultivated grain fields, woodland clearings, and fairly open brushy thickets (Trautman 1940), but these habitats are rarely occupied today. These meadowlarks have been common and widely distrib- uted summer residents in Ohio since the 19th century (Wheaton 1882, Jones 1903). They retained this status into the 1930s when Hicks (1935) claimed they were common to abundant in every county. He assigned a similar status to this species along the entire unglaciated Allegheny Plateau (Hicks 1937). Beginning in the 1940s, Eastern Meadowlark populations experienced local declines. This trend continued during subsequent decades as intensive agricultural land use practices eliminated many suitable grasslands (Peterjohn 1989a). Unusually heavy mortality during the severe winters of the late 1970s accentuated this decline, although their numbers recovered somewhat with the return of normal winter weather conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lagoon Flyer
    BUENA VISTA AUDUBON SOCIETY LAGOON FLYER VOLUME 47 / NUMBER 8 / OCTOBER 2018 Tricolored Blackbirds: A Desperate Tale With a Hopeful Ending Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie. It was downhill from there. Glossy black with epaulets of red and white, the Tricolored Blackbird once abounded. In the 19th century, one author stated they were “the most abundant species in San Diego and Los Angeles counEes.” EsEmates set some colonies at more than a million birds. Since then, though, the populaEon has declined conEnuously and precipitously. In the last decade alone, the Tricolored Blackbird populaEon has decreased by more than two thirds, to an all-Eme low of 145,000. What the heck is going on with these birds? The short answer is habitat loss, climate change, an abundance of predators, and a lack of protecEon. But aNer a decade of effort by conservaEon groups, in April 2018, the California Fish and Game Commission officially listed the Tricolored Blackbird as “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act. Meanwhile, California Audubon has collaborated with an alliance of farmers, researchers, governmental agencies, and conservaEon organizaEons to implement an acEon plan to reach a goal of 750,000 birds. October’s speaker, Dr. Rosamonde Cook, has been at the center of this story since 2004. From Central to Southern California, she has conducted populaEon research and worked closely with efforts to stage the comeback of this once-common species. It’s a complex tale and no one is be\er able to shed light on the Tricolored Blackbird’s perilous journey. Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Social: 6:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • NEWS and NOTES by Paul Hess
    NEWS AND NOTES by Paul Hess “Lilian’s” Meadowlark für Ornithologie 135:28), but no details about the findings have been published. Ornithologist Harry C. Oberholser was intrigued by mead - At last, a large-scale genetic report by F. Keith Barker, Ar - owlarks collected in 1929 near Arizona’s Huachuca Moun - ion J. Vandergon, and Scott M. Lanyon arrived in 2008 tains, because their size, structure, and plumage differed (Auk 125:869–879). They examined two mitochondrial from those of the Western Meadowlark and from known DNA (mtDNA) genes and one nuclear locus in 14 Eastern variations of Eastern Meadowlark. In 1930 he described the Meadowlark subspecies throughout the North American, specimens as a new Eastern Meadowlark subspecies and Central American, and South American range. named it lilianae to honor Lilian Baldwin, who had donat - The results indicate a long history of evolutionary diver - ed the collection ( Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Mu - gence between lilianae and all except one other Eastern seum of Natural History 1:83–124). Meadowlark subspecies, auropectoralis of central and We now know it as “Lilian’s” Meadowlark, of desert grasslands in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, where it is distinguishable from Western Meadowlark with careful study by eye and ear. In identification guides, lilianae re - ceived little attention and no illustration until the National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America in 1983. Kevin J. Zimmer of - fered tips in Birding (August 1984, pp. 155–156) and in his books The Western Bird Watcher (Prentice-Hall 1985) and Birding in the American West (Cornell University Press 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Neotropical Birding 24 2 Neotropical Species ‘Uplisted’ to a Higher Category of Threat in the 2018 IUCN Red List Update
    >> FEATURE RED LIST 2018 The 2018 IUCN Red List in the Neotropics James Lowen, Hannah Wheatley, Claudia Hermes, Ian Burfield and David Wege Neotropical Birding 21 featured a summary of the key implications for the Neotropics of the 2016 IUCN Red List for birds. This article briefs readers on the main changes from the 2018 update. s part of its role as the IUCN Red List BirdLife’s Red List team updated the Authority for birds, BirdLife International information available for roughly 2,300 species A is responsible for assessing the global worldwide. Globally, this resulted in changes to conservation status of each of the world’s 11,000 the categorisation of 89 species; 58 species were or so bird species, allocating each to a category ‘uplisted’ to a higher category of threat, whilst ranging from Least Concern to Extinct. The latest roughly half that number – 31 species – were update was published in November 2018 (BirdLife ‘downlisted’. In the Neotropics, 13 species were International 2018). Although much more modest uplisted (Fig. 2) and slightly more – 18 – were in reach than the comprehensive update carried downlisted (Fig. 5). Now let’s take a closer look at out in 2016, whose Neotropical dimension was the individual changes, largely using information discussed in Symes et al. (2017), the 2018 revamp made available on BirdLife’s ‘Globally Threatened contains a suite of interesting changes for species Bird Forums’ (8 globally-threatened-bird- occurring in the Neotropical Bird Club region that forums.birdlife.org). Is the picture quite as rosy as are worth drawing to readers’ collective attention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wintering Meadowlarks of Dane County, Wisconsin
    1954J 87 GENERAL NOTES The Winterin• Meadowlarks of Dane County, Wisconsin.--The 1931 edition of the A.O.U. Check-List states that the Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) winters casually east to southern Wisconsin. Actually this species is a regular winter resident in considerablenumbers, especiallyin Green County most of which was originally prairie. On the basisof sight identification,the westernbird appeared to be the prevailing winter resident. My main interest was the winter status of the Western Meadowlark in comparisonwith the Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnellamagna). In order to obtain positive data, I collected 8 Meadowlarks between December 29 and February 26 during the four winters, 1949-50 through 1952-53. Seven of the specimenswere of the western bird and one the eastern. All were males. The sample is too small to generalizeon the sex ratio and the relative abundanceof the two species. It appears,however, from the specimensand sight identificationsthat the Eastern Meadowlark constitutesless than 10 per cent of the wintering population. Sight identification of the two speciescan only be positive within narrow limits. When the ground is completely covered with snow, Meadowlarks are forced to feed where manure has been piled or scattered in the fidds and especiallyalong the roads where the snow-plowslay bare the shoulders. The birds become so accustomedto traffic that it is usually easy, by slow driving, to passwithin 10 to 20 feet of the feeding birds. The spedescan then be determinedby the color of the back. At a distance the backs of both speciesappear dark, and the observeris inclined to assignthe birds to the more darkly colored eastern species.
    [Show full text]
  • City Nature Challenge 2019 DFW Results
    Dallas-Fort Worth The City Nature Challenge is a global, city-scale BioBlitz event that frames an urban biodiversity survey as a friendly competition between cities. Data collection April 26-29 Identifications Apr 30-May 6 Harris’s Sparrow, Tommy Farquhar, Strecker’s chorus frog, corynorris, iNaturalist, CCBY-NC iNaturalist, CCBY-NC DFW by the numbers: • 10 counties • More than 36,000 observations • More than 2,600 species recorded Participating Johnson • More than 1,000 observers Counties: Kaufman • More than 830 identifiers Collin Parker Dallas Rockwall • Over 97% of observations were Denton Tarrant verifiable Ellis Wise DFW in the Global Rankings out of 159 Cities: Overall: Metros of Pop. >5mil: Metros of >20k sq. km: US & Canada: 7th: Num. Observations 3rd: Num. Observations 2nd: Num. Observations 3rd: Num. Observations 9th: Num. Species 5th: Num. Observers 3rd: Num. Species 5th: Num. Species 10th: Num. Observers 2nd: Num. Observers 3rd: Num. Research Grade Observations Warm Temperate Zone: 5th: Num. Observations The City Nature Challenge is organized by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the California Academy of Sciences. More information at citynaturechallenge.org Dallas-Fort Worth Cumulative Impact 63% of the observations recorded during the City Nature Challenge in the DFW metro area were Research Grade - observations of wild organisms with photo 63% of all Observations or sound vouchers of a quality to merit a to Research species-level identification by the majority of Grade identifiers. During the 4 days of the event, the DFW project saw: • 50 Species of Greatest Conservation Need at Research Grade (see list) • 200 new species records in iNaturalist • 8% increase in iNaturalist observations for the DFW metro counties • Project page: https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/city-nature-challenge-2019- dallas-fort-worth Spotlight: Engelmann’s Bladderpod The City Nature Challenge uncovered a previously unknown population of a rare Texas plant, the Engelmann’s bladderpod (Physaria engelmannii), in Dallas County.
    [Show full text]
  • Backyards Birds of the Brazos Valley
    BACKYARDS BIRDS OF THE BRAZOS VALLEY Western Diamondback Rattlesnake • Species in the world- about 10,000 • Species in the US- about 820 • Species in Texas- about 630 • Species in BV- about 300 • How many in your backyard? What birds need • Food – seeds, suet, sugar water (bush/tree nearby), fruit, ”protein” such as mealworms • Water – birdbath (shallow!), creek/running water, drip, mister, pond • (use mosquito control!) • Shelter – Box (2 kinds-nest and roost), roosting bush/tree, protection after bath Northern Mockingbird Loggerhead Shrike Loggerhead Shrike Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Western Kingbird Eastern Phoebe Northern Cardinal Northern Cardinal Red-capped Cardinal Eastern Bluebird male Eastern Bluebird female Carolina Wren American Goldfinch American Goldfinch Ruby-throated Hummingbird Rufous Hummingbird Anna’s Hummingbird Buff-bellied Hummingbird Mourning Dovee Inca Dove White-winged Dove Eurasian collared Dove Rock Pigeon / Rock Dove American Crow Chimney Swift Chimney swift tower Chimney swift nest-eggs Purple Martin Purple Bartin box + gourds Ooooooops Barn Swallow Barn Swallow nest Barn Swallow nest Barn Swallow nest base Red-bellied Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker Red-headed Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Black-and-white Warbler Yellow Warbler Wilson’s Warbler Cerulean Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Prothonotary Warbler Painted Bunting Indigo Bunting Great Egret Great-blue Heron Green Heron Killdeer
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Meadowlark Minnesota Conservation Plan
    http://www.mikelentzphotography.com/ Mike Lentz | Lentz Mike Credit Eastern Meadowlark Minnesota Conservation Plan Audubon Minnesota Spring 2014 The Blueprint for Minnesota Bird Conservation is a project of Audubon Minnesota written by Lee A. Pfannmuller ([email protected]) and funded by the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. For further information please contact Mark Martell at [email protected] (651-739-9332). Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Status ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Legal Status ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Other Status Classifications .................................................................................................................. 6 Range ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Historical
    [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]
  • Pine and Grassland Birds of the Southeast Coastal Plain
    Pocket Guide to Pine and Grassland Birds of the Southeast Coastal Plain East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture SOUTHEAST COASTAL PLAIN AND PIEDMONT Map provided by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. - SRO GIS Lab Pocket Guide to Pine and Grassland Birds of the Southeast Coastal Plain The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture is a self- directed partnership of 14 organizations with a shared mission to protect and restore bird populations by coordinating the effective conservation of key habitats of the Southeast Coastal Plain. Contact Us Catherine Rideout Coordinator, East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture [email protected] Production of this guide was funded by The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This pocket guide was created by a subset of partners of the East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture on behalf of the partnership: Amity Bass - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Dr. Pete Blank - American Bird Conservancy Seth Blitch - The Nature Conservancy David Bryan - Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Chris Doffitt - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Rob Holbrook - East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture Chris Reid - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Catherine Rideout - East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture Al Schotz - Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Auburn University Museum of Natural History Michael Seymour - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Scott Somershoe - Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (currently affiliated with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Also, thanks to the guide reviewers, including Rachel Levin (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), David Bryan (Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries), Erin Bryan, Steve Chapman, Don McKenzie, Sergio Pierlu- issi, and Ben Robinson, and Becky Chapman (Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries) for layout.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of 2 Vegetation-Height Management Practices for Wildlife Control at Airports THOMAS W
    Human–Wildlife Confl icts 1(1):97–105, Spring 2007 Comparison of 2 vegetation-height management practices for wildlife control at airports THOMAS W. S EAMANS, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA [email protected] SCOTT C. BARRAS, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, P.O. Drawer 6099, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA GLEN E. BERNHARDT, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA BRADLEY F. B LACKWELL, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA JONATHON D. CEPEK, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA Abstract: Vegetation-height management is a potential method to reduce bird numbers at airports. Based on studies in Europe, researchers recommended vegetation heights around 25 cm; however, preliminary studies in the United States produced confl icting results regarding the effect of tall (18 to >25 cm) vegetation on bird numbers at airports. From 1999 to 2002, we compared birds and other wildlife use of 4 short-vegetation plots (mean maximum height of 15.6 cm ± 5.1 SE and visual obstruction reading of 4.6 ± 3.0 cm) and 4 tall-vegetation plots (mean maximum height of 26.9 ± 8.4 cm and visual obstruction reading of 10.0 ± 5.0 cm) in Ohio. We surveyed bird use of the plots 2 to 3 times/week and observed 6,191 birds in short-vegetation plots and 5,962 birds in tall-vegetation plots.
    [Show full text]