Purple Martin Population Status, Nesting Habitat Characteristics, and Management in Sacramento, California
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PURPLE MARTIN POPULATION STATUS, NESTING HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS, AND MANAGEMENT IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA DANIEL A. AIROLA, Jones & Stokes, 2600 V Street, Sacramento, California 95818 JESSE GRANTHAM, National Audubon Society, 205 N. Carrizo Street, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 (currentaddress: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hopper MountainNational Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2493 PortolaRoad, Suite A, Ventura, California 93003) ABSTRACT:The PurpleMartin (Prognesubis) has been eliminated from mostof California'sCentral Valley. The last known populationnests in elevatedroadways ("bridges")in the city of Sacramento. We reviewed bird records (1949-1990), conductedsurveys to assesspopulation size and trend (1991-2002), and evaluated managementactions to protectand increasepopulations. Martins ceased nesting in buildingsin Sacramentoin the 1960s and 1970s as the EuropeanStarling (Sturnus vulgaris)population exploded, but adoption of verticalweep holes for nesting beneathbridges in the 1960s hasallowed martins to persist.The knownSacramento populationincreased from fourto sevencolonies and from approximately105 to 135 nestingpairs from 1992 to 2002. Martin coloniesare locatedin longer(>85 m) bridge sectionsthat provideat least 6 m of unobstructedairspace beneath the colonies. Managementhas included a pilot projectto insertwire "nestguards" in weep holesto increasesurvival of young and protecting nesting coloniesduring construction activitiesnear nests.Initial resultsindicate that nestguards reduce mortality of young fallingfrom nests and do not resultin increasedcompetition for nestsites by starlings and other species.Exclusion of martinsfrom nestingat a large colonyto prevent disturbancefrom a constructionproject reduced nesting use of the site;such exclusion is not considerednecessary to protect nestingbirds. Martin recoverymay require substantialmanagement, including protecting and enhancingexisting colonies, en- couragingcolonization of otherelevated road sites, establishing martin use of artificial neststructures in unoccupiedregions, and enlistingpublic adoption of management responsibility. The PurpleMartin (?rognesubis) was once considered"fairly common" in California(Grinnell and Miller 1944) but recentlyhas been considered rare to very uncommonin the state (Garrettand Dunn 1981, Zeiner et al. 1990, Williams 1998). The state of California identifiedthe martin as a species of special concern becauseof a well-documentedand drastic population decline and substantialreduction in the species' geographic range(Remsen 1978). A reviewof the statusof the martinin Californiaalso confirmedthat Sacramentoremains the only locationin the CentralValley where the speciesis known to breed(Williams 1998). The major suggestedcause of martin declinein Californiais competition for nest holes with the nonnativeEuropean Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) (Remsen1978, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Williams 1998, 2002). Detrimen- tal effectsof starlingand HouseSparrow (Passer domesticus) competition are well documentedelsewhere in the U.S. (Brown 1981, 1997) but not specificallyin California.Williams (1998) has also suggestedthat lossof riparianhabitat and snags that representedsuitable nesting habitat may have Western Birds 34:235-251, 2003 235 PURPLE MARTIN NESTING IN SACRAMENTO contributed to martin decline in California. Pesticide effects have not been documented but cannot be dismissed. In the easternU.S., PurpleMartins have relied on birdhousesand gourds as nestingsites for many years(Jackson and Tate 1974, Brown 1997). In the west, Purple Martinshave only recentlymade substantialuse of nest boxesin Oregon,Washington, and BritishColumbia (Copley et al. 1999, Fouts 1996, Horvath 1999). In California,martins formerly nested com- monly in buildingsbut have seldomused nest boxes (Grinnelland Miller 1944, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Williams 1998). In the 1930s and 1940s, useof buildingsin citiesand towns in Californiawas thought to have increasedthe state'smartin populationand range (Willett 1933, Grinnell and Miller 1944). Today, however,no urban areasexcept Sacramentoare known to supportnesting martins (Williams 1998). As summarizedby Williams(1998), PurpleMartins were reported nesting in treesin Sacramentoas earlyas 1853 (Baird1858) and were documented nestingin buildingsas early as 1924 (Bryant 1924). Nestingin buildings occurredmainly in holesformed by hemicylindricalroof tiles(i.e., Spanish tiles).No recentnests have been reported in buildingsin Sacramento(B. and H. Kimball pers. comm.); all recent nestinghas occurredin weep holes beneathbridges (including elevated freeways). We initiatedthis study in 1991 and 1992 to evaluatethe recenthistorical and current populationstatus and nest site characteristicsof the Purple Martin in Sacramentoand to assessthe effectivenessof management actionsfor the species.Grantham continued monitoring through 1997 at one site(see Study Area), and Airola reinitiated monitoring in 2002 to assess the populationtrend. This assessmentalso incorporatesinformation col- lectedat Sacramentocolonies by Williams(1998). The study'sobjectives were to: ß identifyrecent historical and currentmartin colonies in the Sacramento area. ß evaluatechanges in localdistribution and habitatuse at martin colony locations. ß estimatecurrent populations and recenttrends at colonies. ß identifyfactors that may influenceselection of colonysites. ß evaluateeffectiveness of recent managementactions to protect and enhancemartin nestinghabitat. ß identifythreats to coloniesand additionalresearch and management needs. STUDY AREA We surveyedfor Purple Martins at bridgesand buildingsin the Sacra- mentoarea wherethey had previouslybeen observed nesting, as well as at other bridgeswith similarcharacteristics. All sitesused by martinswere in bridgesbuilt of steel and concretebox girders(Tonias 1995). All these bridgesspan urban areas and railroad tracks; none crosseswater. The bridgessupport an enclosedchamber beneath the roadsurface. Weep holes on the undersideof the chamberrelieve air pressureduring heating and 236 PURPLE MARTIN NESTING IN SACRAMENTO coolingand draincondensation, but theydo not drainwater from the road surface. The downtownarea contains the greatestnumber of bridgesin the region. We surveyedsuitable bridge sections to locatecolonies in 1991, 1992, and 2002. Colonieswere definedas occupiedsites separatedby areas of unsuitableor unoccupiedhabitat that exceedthe typicaldistances between nestswithin occupiedsites. We studiedfour occupiedcolony sites in detailin 1991 and 1992: ß I Street--Interstate 5 at I Street in Old Sacramento. ß 20th Street--U.S. Highway50 between19th and 21st streets. ß Broadway--thejunction of State Route 99 and U.S. 50, aboveand adjacentto Broadway. ß 35th Street--U.S. 50 between 34th Street and Stockton Boulevard. Granthamcontinued monitoring the 35th Streetcolony through 1997. We studiedthree additionaloccupied colonies in 2002: ß Sutterville--SuttervilleRoad overpassof the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)yard. ß S Street--CapitalCity Freeway(Business Route 80) at S Street. ß RosevilleRoad--I-80 and the adjacentlight rail parking-accessramp above Roseville Road and the UPRR tracks. METHODS Review of Recent Historical Records Becauseavailable information on the earlyhistorical status of the Purple Martin is limitedand hasbeen summarized(Williams 1998), we confinedthe statusreview to the period since the mid-1900s, for which a substantial numberof recordswere available.We reviewedapproximately 970 martin records(1949-1990) from the Sacramentoarea that Betty and Harold Kimballcompiled from their personalfield notes, as wellas recordsof other membersof the SacramentoAudubon Society (unpubl. data). Other local recordsfrom CaliforniaDepartment of Fishand Game fileswere provided by J. Estepand R. Schlorff(pers. comm.). Many recent historicalrecords noted locationsof birds near known nestingcolonies but did not confirm breedingactivity. We considered breedingat a site to be possibleif recordsnoted that birdswere present during the peak breedingseason (mid-April through July) at a specific buildingor site,probable if birdswere reportedentering holes or carrying nestingmaterial, and confirmed if adultswere observedcarrying food to a nest hole or feedingdependent young, if juvenileswere observedwithin holes,or if recentlyfledged juveniles were reportednear a knownsite. We used1965-1990 recordsonly to documenttrends in colonylocations and nestinghabitats. We could not determineabundance and detailed occupationpatterns because of limitedinformation on nestingactivity. Also, the reportedincidental counts of martinsare not reliableindicators of colony size(see Results). The firstyear of siteoccupation was especially difficult to establishbecause all potentialsites were not surveyedsystematically. Site 237 PURPLE MARTIN NESTING IN SACRAMENTO abandonmentdates are more reliablebecause once the siteswere known, observerstended to visitthem annually(B. and H. Kimballpers. comm.). Surveysfor BreedingColonies We surveyedpreviously reported martin coloniesin 1991, 1992, and 2002. We also surveyedmany other sites in Sacramentothat could be nestinghabitat; these includedlonger sectionsof elevatedfreeway, over- passeswith weep holes,and buildingswith Spanishtile roofs.We surveyed 25 potentialnesting areas from April to July by searchingfor flying and perchedbirds. We conductedmost surveysbefore 11:00 or after 17:00 becausebirds tended to be more activeduring these periods, especially on hot days(Airola unpubl. data). PopulationEstimation at Colonies