Upload
paniz
View
18
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Region 6 White-headed Woodpecker Monitoring 2011. Monitoring Strategy. Cooperators. USFS Pacific Northwest Region Oregon / Washington. Klamath Bird Observatory. Ecology Program has supporting role in this region-wide project. Overview. WHWO Life History & Importance Project Overview - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Region 6White-headed Woodpecker
Monitoring 2011
Cooperators
Monitoring Strategy
USFS Pacific Northwest Region
Oregon / Washington
Klamath Bird Observatory
Ecology Program has supporting role in this region-wide project
Overview
WHWO Life History & ImportanceProject Overview
& Questions AskedEcology Program RoleProtocols & Review of First
Field Season
Summary of Existing Knowledge
Life HistoryFood HabitsRange and DistributionPopulation TrendsHabitat UseEcological Considerations
May be one of the least studied woodpeckers
Life HistoryYear-round residentsMonogamousCavity nesting birdsProduce single clutch per year of 4-5 eggsBoth parents brood and feed youngFledge in 26 days, usually late June-early JulyHome range averages about 800 acresReported reproductive success ranges from 23 to 85% (Frenzel, Kozma, Forristal)Adult survival estimated at 65% (Frenzel)Nest success tied to presence of large pine (Hollenbeck et al. 2009)
Food Habits
Primarily forage on live trees, rarely on snags
Feed on insects from May to September – ants, beetles, cicadas
Feed on ponderosa or sugar pine seeds from late summer through the winter
Occasionally sapsuck in early spring
Frequently drink water
Biology and Habitat UseWhite-headed woodpeckers (WHWO) are strongly associated with open, dry ponderosa pine forest habitat. Historically, fire maintained open habitat for this species.
Generally considered old-growth associates, but Kozma (Yakama Nation) has recently found that they may be using younger forests as well.
Also associated with post-fire habitat. They occur in higher densities and/or reproduce more successfully in post-fire habitat than in other habitats. WHWO is associated with mixed severity burn areas. WHWO use large snags (primarily ponderosa pine) for nesting and roosting. WHWO feed almost exclusively on ponderosa and sugar pine seeds during fall and winter, and mature pine produce a more reliable seed crop.
Other Woodpeckers Along Transects
Pileated WoodpeckerRequires highly decomposed wood, ants
Hairy WoodpeckerMore likely to drill for food
Williamson’s SapsuckerEats sap, phloem, ants
Northern FlickerGround foraging
Black-backed WoodpeckerPost-stand replacement
Lewis’ WoodpeckerFlycatching of aerial insects
A number of other species observed as well:
Range and Distribution
From Garret et al. 1996
British Columbia – very rareIdaho – scarce and patchy distributionWashington – rareE and NE Oregon – uncommonSW Oregon - scarce and patchy distributionCalifornia – common in SierrasS California – different subspecies P. a. gravirostras - common
Habitat Use
General Habitat Description:Ponderosa pine or dry mixed conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine and/or sugar pine and Douglas-firLarge mature pinesNest in open forests with sparse understory vegetationBurned forest – in areas with 60% low severity or unburned (Wightman and
Saab 2008) High interspersion/juxtaposition of open and closed ponderosa pine forest patches (Hollenbeck et al. 2009)71% of landscape with < 40% canopy closure (Wightman and Saab 2008)
Habitat Use
Nesting Habitat:Stands with <40% canopy closure, often in openings created by silvicultural treatments or fireSlopes < 20% and lower slope positionsNest sites w/ >=12 large pines (>21”dbh) had highest nest success (Frenzel)
Kozma 2009 Frenzel 2004 Dixon 1995 Buchanan et al. 2003
Bull 1980 Cannon (unpub. data)
Nest dbh (cm) 36.6 68.9 65.0 51.5 45 100Nest height (m)
3.8 3.6 5 5.8 3 2.2
Decay moderate to decayed
71% moderate moderate to hard
soft
Tree species 80.6 % ponderosa pine
ponderosa pine
84% ponderosa pine
76% ponderosa pine
75% ponderosa pine
Douglas-fir
Sample size 36 405 43 21 4 1Study location
south-central Washington
central and south-central Oregon
central and south-central Oregon
eastern Cascades Washington
northeast Oregon
southwest Oregon
Nest Tree Characteristics
Habitat Use
Roosting Habitat (Dixon 1995):Most roosts in multi-layerd standsHigher canopy closure, average 57%Higher density of large live trees (avg. 16/acre) than nest sites
Foraging Habitat (Dixon 1995):
Foraging stands averaged 65% canopy closureForage primarily in live large ponderosa pine trees Sapsucking occurred in dense stands of smaller trees
Population Trends
Breeding Bird Survey trends :
•Stable to increasing range-wide
•Washington and Oregon – trends not significant and credibility measure was “very imprecise” – 3-5% per year change would not be detected
Population declines and range reductions:
•Central Oregon – comparison of density estimates between Dixon (1995) and Frenzel and Popper (1998) indicate a 20% decline in the density of WHWO in about 5 years
•Central Oregon, reproductive success of WHWO has been too low to offset adult mortality, thus the population is declining to the point that occupancy of known territories steadily decreased over a 6 year study period (Frenzel 2004)
•WHWO no longer occur at some sites in the northern Blue Mountains where they used to be relatively common (Bull 1980
and Nielsen-Pincus 2005)
Management Concerns
Management Indicator Species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, BLM Special Status Species, and a species of concern in Forest Plan Revisions Forest management concerns:
•Fires create habitat and thus help to restore habitat for this species. Salvage can reduce snag densities to levels which eliminate “restored” habitat •Dry forest habitat is the target of most restoration and fuels reduction projects that have the potential to either have beneficial or negative effects on habitat:
•Create open habitat•Reduce risk of loss of large pine habitat•However - especially important is the potential loss of large ponderosa pine trees and snags due to prescribed fire.
Threats to WHWO
#1 - Habitat loss
Causes of Decline: Late-seral, single-story, Ponderosa Pine Forests
Timber harvest: Timber harvest:
Replaced late-seral forests with mid-seral forestsReplaced late-seral forests with mid-seral forests
Harvest of large ponderosa pineHarvest of large ponderosa pine
Fire exclusion: Fire exclusion:
Shift to more shade-tolerant species Douglas-fir Shift to more shade-tolerant species Douglas-fir and white/grand firand white/grand fir
Shift to multi-storied, dense standsShift to multi-storied, dense stands
81 percent decline from historical conditions basin-wide
Golden mantled ground squirrel
- survival and densities higher in areas with higher down wood volume
Yellow-pine chipmunk - densities are Higher where there is greater total shrub and live bitterbrush cover
Threats to WHWO
PredatorsA main cause of nest failure appears to be predation by small mammals (Frenzel 2004)Increase in shrub cover and down wood cover increases nest predator populations (Smith and Maguire 2004)
Other factors affecting WHWO
Disease – loss of white Disease – loss of white pine and sugar pine – pine and sugar pine – alternate food for white-alternate food for white-headed woodpeckersheaded woodpeckers
Competition for nest sitesCompetition for nest sites
Harvest units as ecological Harvest units as ecological traps?traps?
Increased road density Increased road density results in increased loss of results in increased loss of snagssnags
Conservation Assessment for White-headed Woodpecker
Regional Goals: Summarize existing knowledgeIdentify important information gaps and uncertaintiesDefine and map habitatIdentify population and habitat core areasOffer management considerations to better manage the speciesDevelop a monitoring strategy
Monitoring & Research Approach
•Broad-scale occupancy monitoring - designed to provide reliable, standardized data on the distribution, site occupancy, and population trends for white-headed woodpeckers across their range in OR and WA.
•Treatment effectiveness monitoring – designed to assess effect of stand-level treatments on woodpecker occupancy and nest survival.
•Validation monitoring – designed to validate & refine habitat suitability models of nesting white-headed woodpeckers in burned and unburned forests.
•Fuels data collection – designed to support modeling of fire-climate impacts on historic and future habitat suitability
Monitoring Strategy
DDXDDXXDDD DDXXXX
DDDXDXXXDDDDDXDD
X
X
D
D
X
DDXDDDXDD
DX
D
XD
XDDXD
D
X
D
D
XD
X
D
DX
D
XX
X
X
D
X
X
XX
D
XXXX
X
X
XXX
X
X
XXD
X
X
XX
X
X
DX
XD
X
X
XXDX
D
X
X
X
XX
XX
DX
XXXXXX
X
XD
D
XX
X
XX
X
D
X
X
X
XDD
XXXX
X
X
D
X
X
X
D
D
X
X
X
X
D
D
X
D
D
D
XXX
D
D
D
X
X
X
DD
X
X
DD
X
X
XD
X
XX
DD
D
XD
XXD
DDXD
X
D
X
DDXDD
D
D
X
XD
XXD
DD
XD
D
DDDDDD
D
DDDD
XX
D
DXXXXX
XDX
D
XXX
X
XX
X
DX
DX
XXXX
XXDXX
X
XXX
XDDX
XX
DD
X
XX
X
X XDXDXXXXXXXXXXDDDXXDDXXXDXX
XX
X
DD
D
X
X
XDD
X
X
X
X
X
DXX
D
XDDXX
X
XXD
X
X
DDD
X
XXXXX
D
_̂XX
X
X
DXXDXXX
X
XXXDXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDD
DDDDDD
DD
_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_
_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂_̂_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂_̂_̂_̂̂_̂__̂_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂__̂̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_
_̂
_̂
_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_ _̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_
XXXX XXXXX
_̂̂_̂_
_̂̂_
XXX
XX
X
XXXX
X
XXX
X
XX
D
X
X
XXXX X
X
X
X
XXX
XX̂XXX
D̂_D
X
_̂_̂X_̂X
_̂
^
XX̂_̂_̂DD̂_DXX̂DXDX̂_̂_X̂_̂
_̂X̂__̂_̂_̂X_̂
X
_̂
X
D
X
_̂D
DD
X
DD
D
DD
_̂
D
D
D
XDX
D
XX
XXXXX
XXX
X
XXX
X
X
XXXXXXX
X
XX
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
XXXX
XX
XX
X
X
XXX
XX
XX
X
XXXX
X
X
XX
XXXX
X
XXXX
XX
X
XXXX
X
D
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
XDX
X
DXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
XX
XX
X
XX XXX
XX
XXX XX
XX
X XX
XX
XX XXX
XX
X
X
XX
X
XXX
XX
X
X
X X XX
X
X
X
X
X XX
X
X
X
XX X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
XD
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
XX
XX
X
XX
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
XX
XXXXX
XX X
XXX
XXX
XX XXXXXX
X
XX XX
XX
X XX
X
XXXX
X
XX
X
X
X
XX XX
X
D
XXXXXXXX
X
X
X
D
_̂
_̂_̂ _̂
_̂̂_
_̂
_̂_̂_̂̂_
_̂_̂̂__̂̂_̂_̂_ _̂̂_̂_̂_
_̂
_̂_̂
_̂
_̂̂__̂
_̂̂_
_̂̂_
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂̂__̂
_̂
_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_
_̂_̂̂_ _̂_̂XX
X
XXX
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
XX X
X
X
X X
X
XXX
_̂
_̂_̂ _̂
_̂̂_
_̂
_̂_̂_̂̂_
_̂_̂̂__̂̂_̂_̂_ _̂̂_̂_̂_
_̂
_̂_̂
_̂
_̂̂__̂
_̂̂_
_̂̂_
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂̂__̂
_̂
_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_
_̂_̂̂_ _̂_̂
D
_̂
_̂_̂ D
D
whwo_1420_albers
GIS
D Hist
_̂ Nest
^ Nest_nonB
X NonBreed
X NonNest
whwo potential
White-headed woodpecker locations in Oregon and Washington
Sources:FS NRIS WildlifeBLM GEOBOBNatural HeritageEBird DatabaseSaab – Birds & BurnsKozmaFrenzel
Gather existing location data on WHWO
Mapping white-headed woodpecker habitat
Nesting Habitat Mapping CriteriaBased on GNN data
BasicHabitat Type: Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western white pine dominated
Green forestsHabitat Type: Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western white pine dominatedCanopy cover: >=10% and < 40%Large trees: 8 pines/acre >= 21 inches
Post-fireHabitat Type: Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western white pinePre-fire canopy cover: >=10% and < 40%Large trees: 8 pines (live or dead)/acre >= 21 inchesFire severity: low severity onlyAge of fire: fires since 2000
Regional broad-scale occupancy and distribution monitoring
•30 transects through region•Play-back survey at point count stations•2,700 m random transects w/ 10 point counts each•Transects within pine-dominated landscapes
Monitoring Strategy
More intensive study areas
•Similar protocol, but more intensive•2 field crews managed by Vicki Saab
•Pringle Falls•Chemult
Monitoring Strategy
This broad-scale monitoring strategy was designed to answer the following questions at a Regional scale:
•What are the spatial distribution and occupancy rates of white-headed woodpecker across the dry forest landscape?
•What are trends in distribution and occupancy?
•What key habitat characteristics are associated with dry forest species? This information will be used to refine habitat associations and treatment prescriptions (e.g., canopy closure, live tree and snag density, and tree size)
Monitoring Strategy
Ecology Program InvolvementEcology Program has supporting role in this region-wide project
Transect establishment and data collection
Area 4 (Central Oregon) was responsible for installing 12 permanent transects in 2011
NE Oregon and Eastern Washington also have transects
Currently intend to revisit transects for 6 years
Woodpecker callbacks were conducted at all 12 transects in 2011
Vegetation measurements were done on 4 transects in 2011
Vicki Saab and Kim Mellen-McLean are managing and analyzing data
Woodpecker Callbacks•In Central Oregon
•12 transects•10 points per transect•2 visits per point between April 20-July 7•4.5 minutes •2 people
Monitoring Strategy
Woodpecker Callbacks•Issues
•Transect establishment•Time sensitive•Weather dependent•Road closures•Long distances between transects•Long days
Monitoring Strategy
Monitoring Strategy
Playbacks•2 people•2 months•5 min/point
Vegetation•Original estimate was 1 week per transect for 2 people•Highly variable depending on point•Avg would be 1 week for 4 people•Thanks Amy and Nikola!
Monitoring Strategy
Monitoring Strategy
Vegetation•1/3 of the transects each year•Trees, saplings, seedlings, snags, stumps, shrub cover, DWD, biomass estimates, litter and duff depths
Monitoring Strategy
Vegetation Data CollectionBird and Burns methodology
Monitoring Strategy
Vegetation Data CollectionBird and Burns methodology
•Trees•2,6,20m belts•DBH, ht, crown ht
•Snags•2,20m belts•DBH, ht
•Down wood•Along each transect
•Saplings•2 4m radius circles
•Litter depth•Photoloads
•Ends of transects 1 & 3
Monitoring Strategy
Photoload sampling technique (Keane and Dickinson 2007)
Fuels data collection •Designed to support modeling of fire-climate impacts on historic and future habitat suitability
•Part of RMRS FireBGC v2 simulation modeling project
•Estimate modern fuel loading using photoload sampling technique (Keane and Dickinson 2007):
•Woody, shrub, herbaceous fuel loadings•Duff and litter fuel loading•Canopy base height and tree height
Monitoring Strategy
Results?