Upload
frederick-patrick
View
225
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Habitat Management in an Integrated Framework
John Eadie, UC Davis
Mike Anderson, IWWR, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Jim Ringelman, Ducks Unlimited Inc
Coherence - what do we mean?
Coherent Objectives
Coherent Models
Coherent Monitoring
Coherent Management Actions
Habitat
NAWMP
Harvest
Flyways
Sustain waterfowl populations
Sustain ecosystemprocesses
Sustain hunterparticipation
Coherent Habitat Objectives
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
I. Local Objectives How would you manage if your objective
were to:
1. Manage only to increase waterfowl populations
2. Manage only to maximize ecosystem processes, biodiversity, ecological services
3. Manage only to maximize hunter opportunity & participation
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Management PopulationsEcosystem Processes
Hunting Opportunity
Food Production Food plots
Moist-soil
Native
Sanctuary
Dispersion of food & sanctuary
Riparian
Access to hunters / public
I. Local ObjectivesWithin Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
More Less Either
Conflicting local objectives“When you drive around and see most of the high quality habitat in closed areas, it’s hard not to question the intent of some of area managers.”
“The biggest problem with our system is that waterfowl and hunting are not always a high priority, and unfortunately, it’s easy to see how politics, personal opinions and philosophies affect habitat quality”
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
II. Regional Objectives Enhanced habitat quantity & quality may
lead to:
increased dispersion of birds
re-distribution of birds
”shortstopping”
Reduced hunter success and increased frustration
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Shortstopping
No evidence for changes in harvest distributions of mallards
Late 1990s were years of exceptionally high harvest in the lower MF
Shifts northward since 2000 reflect a return to harvest distributions similar to those of the early 1980s
Green & Krementz (2008)
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Conflicting objectives within regions Efforts to improve habitat within regions
may have unintended consequences that conflict with other objectives
… or may be perceived as such
How do we manage the human dimension element?
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Allocation of MBCF funds
Biological basis
Hoekman’s et al’s (2002) analysis: ~ 90% of variance in MCM population growth () due to variance in vital rates on the breeding grounds
A simple proposal:Allocate 90% of fundsto breeding grounds
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
43%19%
14%
9% 5%
2% Clutch size2% Clutch size
7%
NestingNestingsuccesssuccessHenHen
Breeding survivalBreeding survival
DucklingDucklingsurvivalsurvival
Hen non-breedingHen non-breedingsurvivalsurvival
Re-nestingRe-nestingintensityintensity
Statistical “noise”Statistical “noise”
III. Objectives Among Regions
Simplistic biological model on role of key factors limiting population growth (and only MC mallards)
Other objectives are important: Supporting partnerships Providing hunting areas Ensuring that non-breeding
habitat does not become limiting
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
43%19%
14%
9% 5%
2% Clutch size2% Clutch size7%
NestingNestingsuccesssuccess
HenHenBreeding survivalBreeding survival
DucklingDucklingsurvivalsurvival
Hen non-breedingHen non-breedingsurvivalsurvival
Re-nestingRe-nestingintensityintensity
Statistical “noise”Statistical “noise”
III. Objectives Among Regions
Conflicting objectives among regions Difficult decisions on how to allocate limited
resources among regions
Need explicit objectives (populations, harvest and human dimensions)
Biological models are only part of the equation
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Sus
tain
able
Ann
ual H
arve
st
0
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
NAWMP Goal8.8 M
MSH5.9 M
Equilibrium Population Size
IV. Continental ObjectivesWithin Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Conflicting continentalobjectives NAWMP goals in current AHM constrain
harvest opportunity (when below Plan goal, utility goes down)
Harvest policy can influence ability to achieve NAWMP goals (under current AHM model weights, MCM BPOP would ≈ 7.5 M)
NAWMP goals were never intended to be met by reduced harvest, but by increased habitat
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Equilibrium BPOP
Su
sta
ina
ble
An
nua
l Har
vest
Current Condition
K
Habitat Loss
K
Expanded Habitat
K
The effect of habitat change on yield curves
Yield curve with NAWMP goal at MSH pointYield curve with NAWMP goal at MSH point
What level of increase?
• Represents a very substantial increase in habitat (at least for mallards under average ponds)
K=17.6M
0 4 8 12 16 20
Equilibrium BPOP
Su
sta
ine
d A
nn
ua
l H
arv
es
t
NA goal 8.8M
Current
Desired
K=11.4M
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Tradeoffs What tradeoffs are necessary?
How willing are we to make those tradeoffs (accepting less of one to achieve more of another)?
Within Regions
Among Regions
Continental
Local
Coherence - what do we mean?
Coherent Objectives
Coherent Models
Coherent Monitoring
Coherent Management Actions
NAWMP Continental Assessment
Challenged JVs to do 3 things:
1. Develop biologically-based planning models
2. Track net habitat changes (losses, not just gains)
3. Measure success in term of biological response (vital rates, populations) not just acres and dollars
Biological models & planning tools?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nu
mb
er o
f JV
s (N
= 1
8)
4
Limited
9
Moderate
5
Great
Habitat goals based on stepped-down continental population objectives?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Nu
mb
er o
f JV
s (N
= 1
8)
10
No
2
Partly
6
Yes
Landscape attributes that affect key vital rates?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Nu
mb
er o
f JV
s (N
= 1
8)
11
5
2
Limited Moderate Great
Ability to track acres delivered?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
mb
er o
f JV
s (N
= 1
8)
5
3
10
Limited Moderate Great
Ability to track net changes (losses and gains)?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
mb
er o
f JV
s (N
= 1
8)
12
2
4
Limited Moderate Great
Ability to track waterfowl abundance or distribution in response to habitat efforts
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
mb
er o
f JV
s (N
= 1
8) 11
34
Limited Moderate Great
How do we affect continental K? How do we scale down from continental
goals to tangible actions at the regional and local level?
How do we ensure that local efforts influence key vital rates and population processes (i.e. link ∆ habitat –› ∆ population)
How do we monitor the success of these efforts?
Can we get there?
Key issues:
Linking habitat not only to vital rates, but also to continental population dynamics
Linking breeding with non-breeding (migration and wintering)
Can we get there?
Efforts underway:
Pintail Action Group
Black Duck JV
Waterfowl Migration Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Winter Joint Venture Workshop
Linking Waterfowl Survival and Wintering Habitat Conditions
B1
B2
W1
W2
Links to vital rates (non-breeding)
Body ConditionHabitat Quality(Food kg/acre) S
urvival
-
+ +
Foraging TimeRequired
Surplus Energy
-+
-
-
+
+
Non-foraging Time -
-
Movement
Recru
itmen
t
PopulationDensity
+
-
+/-
+
Pairing Success
Timing of Breeding
Breeding Propensity++
-
-+
++
- - -
Predation
Harvest
Disease
Starvation--
+
+
+
-
Body ConditionHabitat Quality(Food kg/acre)
+
+
Su
rvival-
Movement
Recru
itmen
t
PopulationDensity
-
-+/-
+
+
Equilibrium BPOP
Su
sta
ina
ble
An
nua
l Har
vest
KK K
Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success
Current Condition
Habitat Loss
Expanded Habitat
Equilibrium BPOP
Su
sta
ina
ble
An
nua
l Har
vest
Current ConditionK
Habitat LossK
Expanded HabitatK
Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success
Objectives
PlanningModels
Monitoring &Evaluation
ManagementActions
Uncertainties Habitat quality vs. habitat quantity
Density-dependence
Regime shifts (climate, policy, land use, water quality)
Take homes Coherence - clarifying objectives and
evaluating willingness to accept tradeoffs
Conceptual challenges - formally integrate habitat models and harvest models at a continental scale (with HD)
Frank discussion - value of prescriptive modeling, ability to monitor success, cost of doing so, resource allocation to ensure biggest bang for the buck
Questions1. How do we “solve” for multiple objectives?
To what extent should our habitat programs be targeted toward:
Sustaining & enhancing waterfowl populations
Sustaining & enhancing wetland processes, systems and ecological services
Sustaining & enhancing hunting & recreational
opportunities (and other stakeholder needs)
Questions
2. To what extent should efforts to achieve
any one objective limit our ability to
achieve the others?
What is our tolerance for accepting less of one
in order to achieve more of another?
Questions
3. How can we affect continental “K”?
What is needed (technical, institutional)?
How do we measure K and ∆K?
How do we “step-up” local / regional actions to
meet continental goals?
Cranky Questions (Mike & Jim are absolved)
1. How serious are we about developing multi-objective, structured decision models, integrating harvest, habitat and human dimensions? What is necessary? What is the willingness of the waterfowl
community to go there?
Cranky Questions
2. Will better integrated models (habitat, harvest & human dimensions) get us there? Increased complexity, lack of data,
uncertainties over functional relationships How to do this for more than just mallards and
a few other species
Cranky Questions
3. Can we ignore the other stakeholders? We are just now (2008) talking about more
explicitly engaging hunters & HD Over the next 1-2 decades, will it still be hunters
“driving the bus”? Are we on the edge of a “hunter bubble”?
Where will the resources come from to support these additional functions?
Should we expand our triangle (HHH) now to include other constituencies?