The Ardeid Newsletter, 2008 ~ Audubon Canyon Ranch

8/9/2019 The Ardeid Newsletter, 2008 ~ Audubon Canyon Ranch

1/16

Conservation Science and

Habitat Protection at

Audubon Canyon Ranch

2008

coastal prairie

grassland research

nesting landscapes

wetland conservation

bit by byte

long-term monitoring

ACR action

science-based

conservation

THE

ARDEID

B

rianE.S

mall/VIREO


2/16

the Ardeid 2008

In this issue

Conserving and Restoring Caliornia Coastal Prairie Grasslands: Grasslands research

at ACRs Toms Point

by Jefrey D. Corbin...................................................................................................

page 1The Protection o Nesting Landscapes: Wetland conservation and the health of heronries by John P. Kelly.......................................................................................................... page 4

Bit by Byte:The growth of ACRs long-term monitoring programs by Emiko Condeso .................................................................................................... page 7

Implications, Infuence, Action: Science-based conservation at Audubon Canyon Ranch by John P. Kelly.......................................................................................................... page 9

Cover: Grasshopper Sparrow, a denizen o Caliornia coastal prairie grasslands. Photo by Brian E. Small /VIREO

Ardeid masthead Great Blue Heron ink wash painting by Claudia Chapline.

Audubon Canyon RanchConservation Science andHabitat Protection

Executive StaSkip Schwartz, Executive DirectorJohn Petersen,Associate DirectorYvonne Pierce,Administrative Director and

Bolinas Lagoon Preserve Manager

Science StaJohn Kelly, PhD, Director, Conservation Science

and Habitat ProtectionDaniel Gluesenkamp, PhD, Director, Habitat

Protection and RestorationEmiko Condeso, Conservation Biologist/GIS

SpecialistGwen Heistand, Bolinas Lagoon Preserve

BiologistJeanne Wirka, Bouverie Preserve BiologistChristine Rothenbach, Helen Pratt FellowSherry Adams, HPR Projects Leader (Bouverie

Preserve)Denise Della Santina, HPR Projects Leader

(Marin)Eric Richardson, HPR Field echnician

Sangeet Khalsa, HPR Field echnicianLand StewardsBill Arthur, Bolinas Lagoon PreserveDavid Greene, omales Bay propertiesJohn Martin, Bouverie Preserve

Research AssociatesJules EvensHelen PrattRich Stallcup

Habitat Protection and RestorationAssociates

Len BluminRoberta Downey

The Watch

Nancy Abreu (H); Ken Ackerman (B,R,S,W);Janica Anderson (H); Jason Allen (N); SarahAllen (W); Jennie Anderson (H); Bryce Aston(N); Bob Baez (S,W); Norah Bain (H,S);Sharon Bale (R); Katy Baty (W); om Baty(W); Cheryl Belitsky (H); David Belitsky (H);Gordon Bennett (S,W); Shelly Benson (R); OdeBernstein (R); Louise Bielelt (N); Gay Bishop(S); Stephanie Bishop (H); Giselle Block (H);Diane Bloom (F); Len Blumin (S); Patti Blumin(H,S); Ellen Blustein (H,S); Janet Bosshard(H); Ralph Britton (H); Melissa Brockman (H);Phil Burton (H); Denise Cadman (H); HeatherCarey (R); Karen Carey (R); Kate Carolan (W);Ann Cassidy (H); Dave Chenoweth (F); DavidCiardiello (N); Brian Cluer (H); George Clyde(W); Hugo Condeso (W); Patricia Craves(F); Rig Currie (S); Karen Davis (H); MelissaDavis (H); Jaime Della Santina (F); Ken DellaSantina (F); John Dineen (H); Bob Dyer (H);Alexandra Eastman (F); Jules Evens (S,W);Mark Fenn (H); Binny Fischer (H,W); LeslieFlint (S,W); Sam Flood (N); Jobina Forder

(B,R); Kevin Fritsche (H); Dennis Fujita (B,R);Jennier Garrison (H); Daniel George (S,W);Mollie Gibbons (N); ony Gilbert (H,S); BerylGlitz (H); Dohn Glitz (H); Sophia Grubb(C); Brian Gully (R); Madelon Halpern (H);Lauren Hammack (H); Fred Hanson (S,W);Roger Harshaw (W); Andrea Hernandez (C);Diane Hichwa (H); Joan Hofman (H); IngridHogle (R); Roger Hothem (H); Ann Howald(R); Lisa Hug (H,S); Rick Johnson (H,S); GailKabat (W); Guy Kay (H); Brian Kirven (W);Ellen Krebs (H); Carol Kuelper (F,S); JoanLamphier (H,S,W); Brett Lane (H); DakotaLawhorn (N); Scott Lawyer (C); April Lelia(F); Stephanie Lennox (H); Robin Leong (H);Eileen Libby (H); Joan Lippman (H); WayneLittle (H); Carolyn Longstreth (H,S,W); JohnLongstreth (H,S,W); Christian Lucido (N);Arthur Lyons (W); David Mac Hamer (H);

Nancy MacDonald (B,R); Jen McBroom (R);Grace McCaull (R); Laurel McCaull (R); MarkMcCaustland (H,R,S,W); Chris McHale (R);Diane Merrill (H); Athena Miller (F); JeanMiller (H); John Miller (F); Sarah Minnick (R);Jim Moir (C); Stephen Moore (H); AndrewMoretto (N); Ian Morrison (S); Dan Murphy(S); Joan Murphy (S); James Nead (R); inaNead (R); Kim Neal (H); Dexter Nelson (C,N);Len Nelson (H); Wally Neville (H); ZacharyNewman (F); erry Nordbye (S); Alina Nuebel(N); Amanda ODoul (F); Brandon Orr (N);Jessica Orr (N); George Pamian (R); ony Paz(F); Kate Peterlein (S); Richard Plant (W); SallyPola (N); Grace Pratt (H); Marvis Purvins(C); Jef Reichel (H); Linda Reichel (H); DonReinberg (S); Camerin Renkin (R); IngoRenkin (R); Rudi Richardson (W); GlendaRoss (B,R); Ellen Sabine (H); Dianne Samples(N); Marilyn Sanders (H); Diana Sanson(N); Jackie Schloemp (R); Karla Schloemp(R); Savannah Schloemp (R); Phyllis Schmitt(C,H,R); Alice Schultz (H); Harold Schulz (H);

Teresa Schulz (R); Marjorie Seigel (H); SteveShafer (H); Paul Skaj (W); Christina Sloop (R);Elliot Smeds (C,N); Joe Smith (W); MarjorieSmith (W); Pat Smith (H); Ben Snead (H,W);John Somers (S,W); Sacchi Spaulding (R);Susan Spaulding (R); Bob Spoford (H); SueSpoford (H); Jude Stalker (R); Rich Stallcup(S); Shelby Stanseld (N); Jean Starkweather(H); Michelle Stone (C); ina Styles (H); Judyemko (H,S); Janet Tiessen (H,W); Vickirabold (R); Mike racy (N); Nick racy (N);Tomas ucker (H); Gerrit Van Sickle (C,N);anis Walters (S); Jim White (S,W); AdeleWikner (H); Diane Williams (S); Ken Wilson(S,W); Linda Wilson (N); Steven Wilson (N);Will Wilson (S); David Wimpeimer (H);Dylan Witwicki (N); Bill Wolpert (W); PatrickWoodworth (H,S,W); Sophie Zagerman (N);Sarah Zaineld (R)

Volunteers or ACR research or habitat restoration projects since TeArdeid2007. Please call (415) 663-8203 i your name should have beenincluded in this list.

Project ClassifcationsBBouverie Stewards sCCraysh Research Project sFFourCanyons Restoration Project sHHeron and Egret Project sNNewtMonitoring sRHabitat Protection and Restoration sSomales BayShorebird Census sWomales Bay Waterbird Census


3/16

Even though I am a Caliornia nativewho grew up hiking hillsides near SanFrancisco Bay, it wasnt until my 20s thatI realized that most o the plants in myavorite hiking spots are out o place. Tedominant species in almost any grasslandhabitat arrived in our state only in the last100200 years. Wild oats: not native toCaliornia. Fennel: not native to Caliornia.Mustard: not native to Caliornia. Tese

now-ubiquitous invasive species evolvedelsewhereusually in another Mediterra-nean climate region such as Europe or SouthAricaand ound an appropriate habitathere once they were introduced.

I now understand the impacts o thenew arrivals on the ecology o Caliorniahabitats. Te golden hills that most o usassociate with summer-time vistas are a verydiferent landscape than the one that greetedthe earliest European settlers. Caliorniasgrassland ecosystems were once largelydominated by native perennial bunchgrassesthat live or more than 100 years and grow

deep root systems so that they can surviveour annual summer drought. oday, ournative orathe plants that evolved hereand are a key part o the regions biodi-versityare much less widespread andusually a minor component o the grasslandecosystem.

Te conversion o grasslands rom habi-tats dominated by native Caliornia plants toareas covered predominantly by short-lived

annual plants have had dramatic efects onthe ecology o grasslands and other habitattypes in Caliornia. Tese areas used tosupport much more diverse native plantand animal communities than those we seetoday. Te stunning wildower displaysthat we enjoy in the spring are a legacy othe native grasslands, and invasive specieshave decreased native plant species in manyhabitats. Te shi rom native perennialgrasses to exotic annual grasses has also hadcascading efects on the animals that dependon the perennial plants as ood sources inthe summer.

oday, we recognize the value o ournative species and the impacts that the newarrivals have had on our environment to amuch greater extent than we did just a ewyears ago. Ecologists who manage grasslandhabitats, including the staf o AudubonCanyon Ranch (ACR), are applying best-management practices to reduce the spreadand impacts o the invasive species and toreintroduce native species to areas romwhich they have been extirpated.

I have been lucky enough to spend thelast 10 years studying the ecological interac-tions between the native and non-nativeplants in coastal grasslands and testing spe-cic techniques that will help restore nativebiodiversity. Much o this work has takenplace at ACRs oms Point Preserve near thenorthern end o omales Bay (Figure 1). Teunique combination o a protected grass-land and the possibility o experimentation

provided by ACRs mission to encouragescientic research on its lands has contrib-uted greatly to the range o questions that Ihave been able to pursue during this time.Let me also add that the support o ACRstaf, especially Dr. John Kelly, made mucho this work possible.

Can native species compete withnon-native species?

Plants living in the same habitat com-pete with each other or the same generalresources required or growth and sur-

vivalspace to germinate and grow, light,water, and soil nutrients, among others. Tepresence o non-native speciesespeciallythe annual grasses such as wild oats (Avenaspp.) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus)likely reduces the ability o native grasses tosurvive when the non-natives are abundant,and it complicates eforts to reintroducenative species.

I conducted several experiments at omsPoint that tested the competitive interac-tions between native bunchgrasses andnon-native grasses. Along with my colleagueCarla DAntonio, I established experimental

Grassland research at ACRs Toms Point

Conserving and Restoring

Caliornia Coastal Prairie Grasslandsby Jefrey D. Corbin

2008 the Ardeid page 1

Figure 1. Grassland study area at Toms Point, Tomales Bay.J

EFFREYD.CORBIN


4/16

eld plots comprised o one o three treat-ments: native grasses only, exotic annualgrasses, or both groups together. By com-paring the growth and survival o the nativespecies in plots with and without non-nativecompetitors, we were able to measure theefect that the exotic annual grasses had on

the populations o native perennial grasses.We could also make the same comparisonsor the non-native species by comparingtheir growth in plots without the nativecompetitors versus plots with native com-petitors. We expected that the exotic annualspecies would be the superior competitors,and that they would reduce the growth othe native species.

Te results were somewhat unexpected,however, in a very encouraging way. In therst year, competitive interactions avoredthe invaders: the growth o the native

grasses grown with the exotic annual grasseswas two-to-three times less than grassesgrown without the exotic annual grasses.However, in the subsequent three years, thenative grasses reduced the productivity othe exotic annual grasses (Figure 2)! By theourth year o the experiment, native grassesreduced the growth o the exotic annualgrasses by a actor o ve, while the nativegrasses grown with the exotic grasses grewnearly as well as in plots without the exoticcompetitors.

Why did this happen? How were thenative grasses able to have such a signi-cant efect on the growth o the non-nativespecies? Te key to this question lies in animportant diference between the nativebunchgrasses ound in coastal grasslandssuch as oms Point and the exotic annualgrasses. As I mentioned earlier, the nativebunchgrasses are long-lived and begin eachgrowing season with an established base androot system. By contrast, the exotic annualgrasses complete their entire lie cycle in asingle growing season, germinating in thelate all with the rst rains and producingseeds or the next generation by the begin-

ning o the summer drought. Tis meansthat an established population o nativebunchgrasses begins each growing seasonwith an advantage over the exotic annualgrasses, which must start over each seasonwith no established population. o use ananalogy rom politics, I like to think o theestablished bunchgrasses as the incum-bents in the systemtheir established baseand root systems (grassroots?) are ableto reduce the access o the exotic annualgrasses to soil, light, and other resourcesthat all plants need.

Tis result is highly encouraging oreforts to restore native biodiversity in grass-land habitats. It suggests that native speciescan compete with exotic annual grasses, andthat habitats in which grasses have becomeestablished can persist. For those managinggrasslands, including ACRs oms Point andBouverie Preserves, this means that efortspent restoring native grass populations islikely to pay of in the orm o stable nativecommunities that can persist in the ace outure invasions.

Given that established native perennial

grasses can be strongly competitive and arecapable o suppressing exotic annual grasses,the question remains as to how exoticannuals have been able to maintain theirdominance in many Caliornia grasslands.Unortunately, ew descriptions exist o theecology o the region during the early settle-ment by Europeans, and so we do not havea good picture as to what the communitycomposition was like or how the conversionto exotic dominance took place. Our bestguess is that the exotic annual grasses andother non-native species beneted rom

new activities that came with Europeansettlement, including intense grazing andland-clearing.

Tese results suggest that both nativeperennial grasses and exotic annual grassescan orm stable, long-lived communities igiven the chance to become established. In

other ecological terms, the native and non-native communities are alternative stablestates and it takes signicant input romoutside sourcessuch as changes in landuse in the past, or active restoration in thepresentto alter the current dominant state.

How can we increase nativeestablishment and restore nativebiodiversity?

I established native bunchgrass commu-nities are stable and able to resist subsequentinvasion, then the goal or restoration

scientists is simple: maximize establishmento native populations. Te challenge is thatthe barriers to successul establishmentremain daunting. Chie among the barriersto native restoration are the low supply onative seeds reaching appropriate habitatsand the intense competitive environmentthat newly germinating native seedlingsmust endure. While the naturally low supplyo native seeds can be overcome throughmanual augmentation o seed input (e.g.,through the commercial production onative seed), adding seeds alone is unlikelyto be sucient. Native seeds that germinatein exotic-dominated habitats are orcedto compete with dense stands (>10,000individuals per m2) o exotic grass seeds thattend to germinate and grow more quicklythan native species. Te highly competitiveexotic annual seedlings have been shown tosuppress the growth o native bunchgrassesenough that natives are unable to developthe deep root systems necessary to surviveCaliornias summer drought.

Te most promising strategy or increas-ing native components in invaded ecosys-tems is likely to be the coordination o mul-

tiple strategies that address exotic speciesabundance, native seed or seedling availabil-ity, and the competitive environment thatthe non-native species create. I applied sucha combination o strategies in an attempt torestore populations in two grasslandsatoms Point Preserve and in the Point ReyesNational Seashoredominated by non-native species. One comparison was to seewhether the augmentation o natural seedsupply could increase the establishment onative seedlings. Te second was to reducethe above-ground competitiveness o the

page 2 the Ardeid 2008

Figure 2. Mean productivity (g/m2 1 SE) o native

perennial bunchgrasses (top fgure) and exotic

annual grasses (bottom fgure), with () and without

(l) intergroup competitors. Asterisks (*) indicatesignifcance between treatments in a given year.

Perennials

Annuals

19981999 19992000 20002001 20012002


5/16

non-native species by mowing plots to re-duce the height and biomass o the commu-nity. Te third was to reduce plant growth(o natives and especially the non-natives)by reducing soil nitrogen levels. I also testedtwo combinations o treatments: seed addi-tion and mowing together, and seed additionand reduced soil nitrogen together.

Te results aer two growing seasonsofered a sobering picture o the challengesthat native seeds must ace to become estab-lished in exotic-dominated habitats. Onlyone o the target native species, Caliorniabrome (Bromus carinatus) successullyestablished in any o the treatments. O thetreatments designed to increase the rate oestablishment, only mowing had a signi-cantly positive efect on Caliornia brome.

Neither the addition o native seeds nor thereduction o soil nitrogen increased the rateo establishment o any o the native species.In addition, there were no interactions be-tween the treatments that would suggest thata combination o strategies that I appliedwould work better than one.

Tese results conrm studies by otherscientists that the addition o seeds byitsel is not enough to increase nativeestablishment. Unortunately, however, thecombination o treatments that I selectedwas insucient to overcome the intense

competitiveness o the non-native speciesat least through two growing seasons. Tetreatments were applied through a thirdgrowing season, and we are currently ana-lyzing the results to see whether the efectswere diferent in 20072008.

The uture o restoration inCaliornia

Caliornias grasslands will never revertback to the native-only conditions that theearly European settlers saw. Te non-nativespecies that I described initially as out oplace have been phenomenally successulhere. Tey are ound in almost every grass-land in the state, and the proportion o thecommunity comprised by the non-nativesoen approaches 100%. Furthermore, there

are new invaders identied each year thathave the potential to cause new shis incommunity composition and change howthe ecosystems unction.

All is not lost, however. Tere are manysuccessul strategies that can preservenative biodiversity in the states grasslandswhile reducing the extent and impacts onon-native species. First, grasslands thatalready have a signicant native componentmust be recognized as the treasures thatthey are. Such habitats should be givenincreased protection rom development


Figure 3. The view looking northward rom native coastal prairie at Toms Point.

JEFFREYD.CORBIN

and other land-use activities thatwould either threaten native plantpopulations or create conditionsthat could encourage invasivespecies. Land-owners such asACR who act as good stewards othe land are a critical part o thisstrategy. Second, we should ocuson increasing native biodiversityin grasslands through suchactivities as seed and seedlingaddition, careul managemento grazing and re, and exoticspecies management. We shouldnot only increase the abundanceo natives where they havepersisted, but also reintroducethem into places where theyhave been lost. Tird, ederal andstate agencies must coordinate

to reduce the introduction onew invasive species into thestate that could cause urtherimpacts in the uture. Currently,legislation gives agencies ewteeth with which they can preventurther introductions. Tere areeven arms o the Department oAgriculture that und projects to

plant invasive plants that other arms o theUSDA try to eradicate.

Tere is much to appreciate in ourgrasslands, even i they difer dramatically

rom what they looked like 200 years ago.Hike and enjoy one o the most beautiulecosystems in the world. Some o the closestapproximations o the pre-European grass-lands can be ound at Bouverie Preserve andsites along the coast such as Point Reyes andoms Point (Figure 3). You can also join theCaliornia Native Grasslands Association(www.cnga.org) or the Caliornia InvasivePlant Council (www.cal-ipc.org) to helpsupport eforts to conserve and restore thestates native grassland ora. For urtherreading, I suggest Caliornia Grasslands:Ecology and Management(UC Press), which

I recently co-edited with Mark Strombergand Carla DAntonio.

Dr. Jefrey D. Corbin is an Assistant Proessoro Biological Sciences at Union Collegein Schenectady, NY. During several o hisyears o work on Tomales Bay, he was Post-doctoral Fellow and Adjunct Proessor at theUniversity o Caliornia, Berkeley. Toms PointPreserve and the Tomales Bakery are highon the list o things he misses since leavingCaliornia.


6/16

I you stand or more thana ew minutes near anywetland or shoreline in the SanFrancisco Bay area, you arelikely to see a heron or egretwinging quietly across thelandscapean encounter that

reinorces ones sense o place.Te length o time you mustwait or such an occurrence,however, depends not only onyour particular location butalso on habitat conditions overa vast landscape.

Te way herons and egretsinteract with the geometry othe regional landscape is com-plex. I the routes o all nestingherons and egrets in our regioncould be tracked or one day,the resulting map would reveal

dense trac patterns like thoseo global airline routes, but withone diference: less than hal othe ights would terminate atcolony sites, where birds con-gregate, whereas all airline ights target busyairport terminals. Rather than resemblingsimple routes among airports, the ightso nesting herons and egrets reect thecomplex interactions o central-place orag-ers that recurrently depart rom nestingcolonies to search or ood among countlessoraging destinations in the surrounding

landscape. o succeed, they must optimizethe amount o time and energy they spendon ight relative to a myriad o surroundingoraging opportunities. Te most productivebirds are those that achieve the greatest netenergy gain as they search or, capture, andtransport prey to eed their nestlings.

Te considerable ecological and econom-ic values o wetlands and increasing pres-sures o human land use have inspired con-tinuing interest in how nesting herons andegrets are afected by the quality or extent osurrounding wetlands. As a partner in the

Integrated Regional Wetland Monitoringproject or the San Francisco Estuary (www.irwm.org), I worked with colleagues at ACRand PRBO Conservation Science on a studyo heron and egret reproductive peror-mance and colony site selection in relationto the proximity and extent o their wetlandeeding areas (Kelly et al. 2008; Figure 1).

We quantied landscape values by mea-suring the extent o each habitat type within1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 km (radii) o each colonysite, based on land cover classication osatellite imagery (NOAA Landsat images,20002002). We also counted the numbero wetland patches within each distance, ametric associated with diferences in hydro-logic timing and receding water levels inisolated pools that concentrate prey. Finally,we measured the total length o wetlandedge habitat within each distance aroundheronries.

One way to determine thevalue o surrounding habitatto nesting herons and egretsis to estimate the extent towhich habitat conditions in-uence the number o youngthey can edge. Te produc-

tivity o heron and egret nestsdepends in part on whetherthey survive the risks o nestpredation, human distur-bance, and extreme weatherevents. Nest attempts that areafected by such dangers usu-ally end in complete ailure.In contrast, the productivityo successul nests depends onthe extent o brood reduc-tion, which reduces thenumber o surviving young.Tis is a consequence o

asynchronous incubation andhatching, which leads to a sizehierarchy o competitivenessand survivorship among nest-lings. Brood reduction allows

herons and egrets to quickly adjust the num-ber o young they must eed in response tochanges in the supply or availability o ood.Tereore, the number o young edgedrom successul nests should be sensitive tothe availability o suitable oraging habitataround heronries.

We used the habitat measurements de-

scribed above and results rom our continu-ing study o heronries in the northern SanFrancisco Bay region (Kelly et al. 2007) toinvestigate two types o landscape efectson nesting herons and egrets. First, weexamined how landscapes inuence heronand egret colony site preerence. o do this,we compared habitat conditions surround-ing 44 occupied colony sites with thosesurrounding 44 randomly selected, unoc-cupied sites with similar site characteristicsand proximity to the tidal marsh bound-ary. Second, we evaluated how landscape


Wetland conservation and the health of heronries

The Protection o Nesting Landscapes

by John P. Kelly

Figure 1.The study o landscape inuences on nesting herons and egrets encompassed all

areas within 10 km o all known heron and egret colony sites (19912005) within 10 km othe historic tidal marsh boundary o Suisun Bay and the Petaluma and Napa marshes o San

Pablo Bay (diagonal hatching). Solid circles indicate heron and egret nesting colonies; open

circles indicate randomly selected, unoccupied sites (see text).


7/16


quality afects heron and egret reproductiveperormance.

Each o the two investigations involvedseveral combinations o habitat variablesthat were repeated within each o the vespatial scales o measurement aroundheronries, resulting in numerous statisticalmodels. Because oraging Great Blue Herons(Ardea herodias) and Great Egrets (Ardeaalba) may y arther than 10 km to eed,we expected that models based on habitatsmeasured within the largest radius (10 km)around colony sites would be the most e-ective in predicting colony site preerencesand reproductive perormance.

Colony site preerencePredictions o colony site preerence be-

tween occupied vs. unoccupied (randomlyselected) colony sites revealed the primaryimportance o estuarine emergent wetlandand open water within 1 km (Figure 2). Teodds o landscape conditions being suitableor a colony site increased by a actor onearly three with each additional km2 oopen water and by a actor o two or eachkm2 o estuarine emergent wetland within

1 km, but decreased by a hal with each km2o grassland within 1 km.

In an interesting application o the analy-sis, we generated regional maps that predictconservation values across the wetlandso northern San Francisco Bay (based ona 100-m resolution grid). Te predictions

suggested that landscape conditions suitableor colony sites were more likely in areasimmediately adjacent to the shoreline o SanFrancisco Bay, near the upper (eastern) endo the estuary, and in the central portions omajor tidal marsh areas, especially Napa andSuisun Marshes (Figure 3).

Productive landscapesNest productivity in both Great Blue

Herons and Great Egrets was sensitiveto the extents o surrounding estuarineemergent wetland, open water, and low-

intensity development, with Great BlueHerons producing ewer young at coloniessurrounded by more grassland (Figures 4and 5). We discovered that a greater extento open water around colony sites wasassociated with increased productivity inGreat Blue Heron nests but with reducedproductivity in Great Egret nests (Figures 4and 5). Tis diference is consistent with thepreerence o Great Egrets or small pondsand estuarine emergent vegetation, whereasGreat Blue Herons oen choose larger bod-ies o water (Custer and Galli 2002), are lesssensitive to water depth (Gawlik 2002), andgenerally capture larger prey. Te positiveefect o low-intensity development onproductivity in both spe-cies suggested the value osmall, undetected ponds,ditches, and other ma-nipulated water sources,although we have notveried this possibility.

Te number o youngedged rom successulGreat Blue Heron nestswas inuenced equally

by habitat conditionsmeasured within allspatial extents aroundcolony sites, but was notparticularly sensitive toconditions at any particu-lar landscape scale (R2 0.22; Figure 4). Tis lacko dominant habitat e-ects at any spatial scaleis consisted with reportso individual Great Blue

Herons consistently using diferent eedingareas at diferent distances rom the colony(Dowd and Flake 1985). Tus, Great BlueHeron colonies may depend on landscapesthat provide suitable oraging habitat at allscales. In contrast, the number o youngproduced by Great Egrets was most sensitive

to the total amount o habitat within 10 kmo heronries (with positive and negativeinuences) and less sensitive to conditionswithin 1 km (Figure 5).

Predictive maps that illustrate the overallresults o the analysis indicate the expectedreproductive perormance o herons andegrets at any point in the landscape (i a suit-able colony site was established). Te mapor Great Blue Herons suggested higher nestproductivity near bay shorelines and wetlandareas (Figure 6). Te map or Great Egretspredicted the highest nest productivity in the

vicinity o Suisun Marsh and in areas withlow-intensity development near to wetlands,and relatively low productivity in northernSan Pablo Bay marshes (Figure 6).

Our results suggest that the reproduc-tive activities o these key wetland preda-tors depend on, and might afect, elementsand processes in the tidal landscape withindistances o 10 km or more. Te predatoryactivities o herons and egrets within thisdistance might afect the populations or be-havior o their prey or the activities o otherwetland predators. In addition, concentra-tions o guano, discarded ood, and allennestlings under heronries may have local-ized efects on nutrient cycles in marshes.

Figure 2. Heron and egret colony site preerence was

more predictable when habitats were measured within

1 km o sites (top fgure; logistic regression). Surround-

ing habitats aected the odds o colony site use more

dramatically at distances o less than 1 km (bottom

fgure; 95% confdence intervals). Symbols indicate

estuarine emergent wetland (l), open water (s), low

intensity development (p), grassland (), number o

wetland patches (r), palustrine emergent wetland (q),

and total wetland edge ().

Figure 3. Odds o colony site use by herons and egrets relative to landscape

conditions in northern San Francisco Bay, based on logistic regression o actual

colony sites (19912005; solid circles) vs. randomly selected, unoccupied sites

(open circles). Low odds o site use in areas surrounding wetlands contrast with

the presence o several small Great Blue Heron colonies because the analysis

ocued on conditions suitable or mixed-species colonies.


8/16


Te broad inuence o landscapehabitat conditions on herons and egretsemphasizes the importance o regionalwetland management and collaborativeplanning. Our results suggest that re-gional planners may be able to enhancethe value o wetland landscapes tonesting herons and egrets by promotingclusters o habitat protection or restora-tion projects within a ew to several kmo colony sites. We have recommendedthat regional planners prioritize wetland

habitat protection and restoration inlocations that have landscape eaturesconsistent with heron and egret colonysites preerences and higher reproduc-tive perormance. Such eatures includemore extensive areas o emergentwetland interspersed with open waterchannels and ponds, within 1 km and10 km. Similar criteria should be usedto create or protect viable landscapesaround existing colony sites.

AcknowledgementsFinancial support was provided by the

CALFED Bay-Delta Science AuthorityIntegrated Regional Wetlands Monitor-ing (IRWM) Pilot Project or the northernSan Francisco Bay and Delta, the Dennisand Carol Ann Rockey Fund o the MarinCommunity Foundation, and the Robert J.& Helen H. Glaser Family Foundation. Wethank the numerous eld observers whohave assisted in monitoring heronries.

Reerences citedCuster, C. M. and J. Galli. 2002. Feeding habitat selection byGreat Blue Herons and Great Egrets nesting in east centralMinnesota. Waterbirds 25:11524.

Dowd, E. M., and L. D. Flake. 1985. Foraging habitats andmovements o nesting Great Blue Herons in a prairie riverecosystem, South Dakota. Journal o Field Ornithology56: 379-387.

Gawlik, D. E. 2002. Te efects o prey availability on the nu-merical response o wading birds. Ecological Monographs72:32946.

Kelly, J. P., K. Etienne, C. Strong, M. McCaustland, and M.L. Parkes. 2007. Status, trends, and implications or theconservation o heron and egret nesting colonies in theSan Francisco Bay area. Waterbirds 30:455-478.

Kelly, J. P., D. Stralberg, K. Etienne, and M. McCaustland.2008. Landscape inuences on the quality o heron andegret colony sites. Wetlands 28:257-275.

Figure 5.The number o young produced in successul Great

Egret nests was more predictable at greater spatial scales

o habitat measurement around colonies (top fgure). Great

Egret nests produced more young when surrounded by

more estuarine emergent wetland (l), more low intensity

development (p), more wetland habitat patches (r), but

less open water (s) and less palustrine emergent wetland

(q)especially when measured within 10 km (standardized

regression coecients standard error).

Figure 6 (at right).

The predicted number

o young produced in

successul nests o (A)

Great Blue Herons and

(B) Great Egrets, based on

landscape inuences in

northern San Francisco Bay,

19912005. Solid circles

indicate colony sites.

Figure 4.The number o young produced in successul GreatBlue Heron nests was equally predictable at all spatial scales

o habitat measurement around colonies (top fgure). Great

Blue Heron nests produced more young when surrounded

by more estuarine emergent wetland (l), more open water

(s), more low intensity development (p), and less grassland

(; standardized regression coecients standard error).


9/16


Forty-one years ago, a graceul womannamed Helen Pratt took her steadastlove o birds, naturally analytical mind, andinnite patience up the steep Kent rail atPicher Canyon. Naturally, she didnt orgether spotting scope. Helen had begun docu-menting the reproductive activity o heronsand egrets at the Bolinas Lagoon Preserveo Audubon Canyon Ranch, a project thatwould not only lead her to pen one o themost o-cited scholarly publications onheron and egret natural history (Pratt 1970),but would also inspire a region-wide studyo colonially nesting wading birds (Kelly etal 2007). Since Helens retirement rom eld-work about ten years ago, the volunteers andstaf biologists o Audubon Canyon Ranchhave continued her twice weekly observa-tions. Each year they capture another snap-shot o breeding activity at this signicantheronry, maintaining ACRs longest-running

data set (Figure 1).Helens study at Picher Canyon is now

one o several long-term monitoring projectsconducted by ACR. Many groups, includingagencies, non-governmental organizations,and universities, conduct long-term ecologi-cal monitoring. Such programs range romthe continental scale o the National ScienceFoundations Long erm Ecological Research(LER) network to small organizationsdocumenting single populations at speciclocations. Monitoring is a core activity oconservation, or in order to identiy poten-

tial threats and prioritize interventions, prac-titioners must have some way o assessingthe status o what they are trying to protect(Marsh and renham 2008). As the inu-ence o human activity on the natural worldcontinues to increase, the need to makethese assessments is becoming increasinglyvital. Well-designed monitoring can provideinsight into whether habitat is improvingor degrading, i species abundances areincreasing or decreasing, or i a managementstrategy is having the desired efect.

From heronry observations to newtcounts, ACRs monitoring projects are as

diverse as the preserves themselves. Whilethe majority o these projects emerged romearly explorations o the preserves and hadprimarily educational goals, the resultingarchive o data is now a resource that canbe used to address a variety o conserva-

tion questions. Analysis o data rom theNorth Bay Heron and Egret Project, orexample, has revealed signicant shis incolony size across the region in recent years,

possibly related to ocean conditions, andthe relatively long time scale o our data setmay allow or investigation into the cause othese uctuations (Kelly et al. 2007). In ad-dition, the heronry data have been appliedto the evaluation o restoration projects inthe northern San Francisco Bay (www.irwm.org; Kelly at al. 2008) and have also beenutilized by local agencies, planners, andconsulting rms to evaluate the impacts odevelopment. With other similarly rich datasets maintained by ACR, there are a numbero relevant issues that may be addressedin uture studies, rom the extent to whichthe Pacic herring shery in omales Bayimpacts waterbird populations (seeArdeid2007), to the inuence o global warming onwintering omales Bay bird populations.

Audubon Canyon Ranch has made e-ective use o our monitoring data over theyears by contributing to the peer-reviewed

scientic literature and through direct con-servation action (see article in thisArdeid),yet there are still additional ways these datacan contribute to the conservation efort. As

The growth of ACRs long-term monitoring programs

Bit by Byte

by Emiko Condeso

CLERINZUMWALT

Figure 1. Peak number o Great Blue Heron and Great Egret nests at the Picher Canyon heronry, 19652008. Long-

term patterns suggest a possible association between annual rainall and the number o Great Egret nests, but under-

lying processes that might account or these patterns remain unclear. Rainall data are rom Kentfeld, Marin County

(National Climatic Data Center).

Peaknumberofactivenests

Annualprecipita

tion(inches)

Year

Helen Pratt monitoring the nesting activities o herons

and egrets and Picher Canyon.


10/16


the scientic community addresses complexissues at increasingly broader scales, sharedaccess to the long-term data sets being col-lected across the world has become crucial.Conservation biologists have a responsi-bility to make the results o their studiesavailable to the scientic community, andthe gold standard or sharing research hasalways been peer-reviewed publication. Tatsaid, data sets that have not been published,especially the results o ongoing monitoring,may still have signicant value and directapplication to conservation. Te peer-reviewprocess is also inherently slow, which maydelay the application o results to manage-ment. Improvements in technology have re-moved many o the traditional impedimentsto long-distance collaborations, allowing

researchers to share their work in new ways.Organizations are emerging whose

sole purpose is to connect individuals andgroups with similar goals, rom the ex-pansive National Biological InormationInrastructure (www.nbii.gov) to our localSan Francisco Bay Conservation Commons(www.northbaycommons.net). Tese groupsare working to acilitate the synthesis oscientic inormation through the develop-ment o standards and technologies thatsimpliy the integration and applicationo diverse resources. Data management

responsibilities and philosophies are being

dened that will promote sharing, ensureproper credit, and prevent misinterpreta-tion o shared data. Some organizationselect to share project descriptions withoutthe actual databasewhich also contributesto increased scientic collaboration andreduces redundancy. Becoming an activepartner in such distributed networks is yetanother way that long-term research at ACRis used, encouraging inormed managementand contributing to a clearer picture o thestate o nature.

While brimming with potential, long-term monitoring projects are not withouttheir challenges. Particularly relevant tonon-prot organizations, cost is always asignicant actor. Field biologists, equip-ment, data management, and analysis are all

expensive. Long-term monitoring projectsoen lack a sense o urgency and may beconsidered expendable, especially in lighto other more immediate issues. However icontinuity is lost, so is a monitoring projectsgreatest asset: its consistency over time. Oneo the ways ACR meets these challenges isthrough the use o skilled volunteers. Yearso experience, an investment in volunteereducation, and project design ocused onthe needs o volunteers have contributed tothe success o these eforts. We have devel-oped eld protocols specically or volun-

teers, ound ways to coordinate with many

people across large geographic areas, andcultivated a group o individuals with highdelity to our programs. We have also oundsignicant additional benets o workingwith volunteers. Engaging and educating thepublic oen also contributes to the conser-vation efort. Many o our volunteers are

community leaders, and some have grownto take on active roles in local issues. Teyhave also become proud educators, bringingnew people to our programs by sharing theirenthusiasm or the work and the knowledgethey have gained through volunteering.

As the ACR Conservation Scienceand Habitat Protection program evolves,so have our monitoring programs. Dataresources at ACR are not only collected orour own needs, but also or the benet oour conservation community. As such, ourcurrent monitoring eforts not only support

the ACR research agenda but also acilitatethe use o valuable environmental inorma-tion by others working in our region andsimilar ecosystems. Helen Pratt produced asignicant body o work and drew valuableinsights rom her observations at PicherCanyon, yet there is much to be gained bycontinuing her work and our other monitor-ing eforts.

Data collection is a signicant invest-ment in time and expense; thereore westrive to honor that investment and view ourlong-term data resources as dynamic, notstatic, collections. Tis challenge means thatwe must not only maintain our programs,but also evaluate them regularly withattention to current environmental con-cerns. How can we enhance the design oour monitoring projects to maximize theiruseulness? What supplementary data setscould be easily collected and would provideuseul inormation or visiting research-ers and our own staf? By actively reningthe way we manage and share long-termmonitoring results, we are providing newand valuable inormation to the conserva-tion community, documenting ecological

context or our shorter-term investigations,and urther enhancing the scientic value oour sanctuaries.

Reerences citedKelly, J. P., Etienne, K., Strong, C., McCaustland, M., and

M. Parkes. 2007. Status, trends, and implications or theconservation o heron and egret nesting colonies in theSan Francisco Bay Area. Waterbirds 30:455-639.

Kelly, J. P., Stralberg, D., Etienne, K., and M. McCaustland.2008. Landscape inuence on the quality o heron andegret colony sites. Wetlands 28:257-275.

Marsh, D.M., and P.C. renham. 2008. Current trends inplant and animal population monitoring. ConservationBiology, 22:647-655.

Pratt, H. M. 1970. Breeding biology o Great Blue Heronsand Common Egrets in Central Caliornia. Condor72:407-416.

Sharing scientifc inormation or conservation

Although researchers are oten willing to provide access to data, sharing data eectively is

surprisingly complicated. Great pains must be made to describe the purpose and mean-

ing o every datum. Such meticulous documentation, or metadata, ensures that data are

used and interpreted in an appropriate manner. Metadata comes in many avors and,

unortunately, there is still no one standard accepted by all organizations and agencies. ACR

metadata conorms to guidelines set by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) or

spatial data and the data report ormat recommended by the Ecological Society o America.

Online data resources have become valuable in sharing ecological inormation (see exam-

ples below). Inormation about our projects is currently available through online resources

such as the Caliornia Resources Evaluation System (CERES), and we are taking advantage

o a variety o other new technologies to share our work with the conservation community.

The geographic browser Google Earth has allowed us to communicate spatially reerenced

inormation with the conservation community about the network o heronries we monitor

(www.egret.org/googleearth2.html). This has been an especially useul resource or those

who do not have access to a geographic inormation system (GIS). We hope to continue to

improve this resource by including other long-term monitoring eorts and by developing it

into a true web-based GIS.

Examples o online data resources:

The National Biological Inormation Inrastructure (www.nbii.gov)

The Knowledge Network or Biocomplexity (knb.ecoinormatics.org/index.jsp)

The Avian Knowledge Network (http://www.avianknowledge.net)

Caliornia Resources Evaluation System (ceres.ca.gov)

Caliornia Avian Data Center (data.prbo.org/cadc2)

The San Francisco Bay Area Conservation Commons (northbaycommons.net)

The Bay Area Regional Database (bard.wr.usgs.gov)


11/16


he critical role o conservation sciencetoday hinges on this act: policy mak-ers must deal with many competing issueswhereas conservation scientists are best ableto ollow E. O. Wilsons (1994) advice, tolove the organisms or themselves, rst....Tis latter perspective accounts or thestrength o Audubon Canyon Ranchs com-mitment to local and regional environmen-tal action (Figure 1).

One o the most powerul orms oadvocacy afecting conservation stakehold-ers is the promotion o the best availablescience. Unortunately, such eforts oen ailto meet current conservation needs, becausedecision makers can be severely limited intheir ability to use such inormation. Tesolution seems simple: those who produceand understand the science have a responsi-bility not only to make their results available,but also to analyze the ecological implica-

tions o associated management, planning,and policy issues. Such direct involvementassumes an ethical commitment to biodiver-sity conservation but careully avoids biasesrelated to economic considerations, humanwell-being, or other values. (Recommenda-tions then become powerul tools or plan-ners and policy makers who must considercompeting values and tradeofs to determinethe best options.) ACR seeks such science-based participation, but this process requiresconsiderable discipline and selectivity.

In contrast to the traditional reluctance

o scientists to weigh in on public policymatters, conservation biologists agreestrongly that they should participate directlyin land-use planning and conservationpolicy (Soul and Orians 2001, Murphy andNoon 2007, Lackey 2007, Chan 2008). How-ever, to maintain a science-based approach,ACR comments on conservation issuesonly i it can make a signicant contribu-tion based on our own scientic work orexpertise, or i an issue directly involves thehealth o our sanctuaries or native speciesthat depend on them. We try to emphasizethe limits o certainty in the concepts or

evidence used to support our recommenda-tions. We steer clear o values or positionsnot related to biodiversity conservationvalues that might afect trade-ofs amongmanagement alternatives. So, each decisionto act is well considered. Our contributionsare ocused. Tere is an art to the efective

application o science.

Protecting heronriesACR has valuable knowledge about the

ecology o herons and egrets and, thereore,oen advises consultants, developers, andplanners about bufer distances needed toprotect heron or egret nesting colonies romhuman disturbance. Our recommendationsgenerally reect the minimum distance atwhich nesting birds are likely to toleratehuman activity near any unspecied siteadistance o 200 m (Figure 2; seeArdeid2003 and Kelly et al. 2006). It is no surprise

that planners and developers almost alwaysconsider this distance to be too large. In ad-dition, this distance reects only the efectso a single observer approaching on oot andshould be greater to ensure that the birds tol-erate groups o people, heavy equipment, orconstruction activities. o urther complicate

things, the responses o herons and egrets todisturbance vary dramatically among colonysites, so the uncertainty o this recommenda-tion or any particular site is huge. Conse-quently, such advice leads to compromises,coupled with strategies or habitat protec-tion, adjustment o project designs, andlimits on the timing o proposed activities.ACRs inuence in such matters depends onthe recognized extent o our expertise andhow efectively we explain the possible eco-logical consequences o each proposal.

ACR has provided key inormation usedto mitigate major threats to heronries at

Science-based conservation at Audubon Canyon Ranch

Implications, Infuence, Action

by John P. Kelly

Figure 1. Audubon Canyon Ranch maintains an active role in numerous local and regional conservation issues. For

nearly two decades, ACR has actively advocated or the protection o sensitive dunes and dune wetlands at Lawsons

Landing, near the north end o Tomales Bay.


12/16

Napa State Hospital (proposed removal oheronry, Napa County), the Petaluma River(proposed asphalt plant, Sonoma County),Channel Islands Harbor (proposed build-ing location and design, Ventura County),Santa Rosa Creek (repeated hazing and nesttree removal, Sonoma County), DeSilva

Island (condominium development, MarinCounty), Humboldt Bay (restoration andmanagement o a large heronry, HumboldtCounty), Clear Lake (heronry manage-ment, Lake County), Lake Merritt (heronrymanagement, Alameda County), and UCDavis (colony threatens grove o rare oaks,Yolo County). Our role in providing suchadvice seems to be growing. By making keycontributions to the U.S. Fish and WildlieServices Comprehensive ConservationManagement Plan or the Marin IslandsNational Wildlie Reuge, ACR helped to

ensure the protection o one o the regionsmost important heronries (seeArdeid2003).

o urther strengthen ACRs role inprotecting nesting colonies, we collaboratedwith the San Francisco Bay Bird Observa-tory to develop an annotated atlas o allknown heron and egret nesting coloniesin the San Francisco Bay area (www.egret.org/atlas.html). In addition, we provided allnine county development agencies in theregion with GIS data les that acilitate thedetection o heronries near any proposeddevelopment. o make inormation on thestatus and location o Bay Area heronriesaccessible to anyone, ACR landscape ecolo-gist Emiko Condeso created a downloadablereerence using Google Earth (www.egret.org/googleearth2.html). A major beneto ACRs broad network o volunteer eldobservers is the presence o knowledgeable

individuals throughout the region who arewilling to act locally to protect heronriesand surrounding wetlands.

Conservation teamworkConservation planning currently

depends strongly on stakeholder groups

within ecologically dened areas such aswatersheds. Skip Schwartz, ACRs Execu-tive Director, and Gwen Heistand, ResidentBiologist at ACRs Bolinas Lagoon Preserve,are longstanding members o the BolinasLagoon echnical Advisory Committee(BLAC). Tis group advises the MarinCounty Open Space District (MCOSD) onappropriate management o Bolinas Lagoon.In recent years, management concerns haveocused on the long-term dynamics betweensediment deposition and tidal circulationthe lieblood o the estuary. Gwen is also

on the joint working group o the Gul othe Farallones National Marine Sanctu-ary Advisory Council and MCOSD, whichrecently produced a key report on Recom-mendations or Restoration and Manage-ment o Bolinas Lagoon. ACR will continueto have an active interest in the health andmanagement o Bolinas Lagoon.

ACR is also a member o the omalesBay Watershed Council, a stakeholdergroup o approximately 30 agencies andorganizations who work collaboratively toprotect and restore the waters and lands inthe omales Bay watershed. As a ound-ing member and scientic advisor to theCouncil, I helped to complete the omalesBay Watershed Stewardship Plan in 2003(www.tomalesbaywatershed.org). Currentactivities o the Council ocus on imple-menting key objectives o the plan. I am

currently working with other biologists ona list o Species o Local Interest, to identiyspecies with special conservation needs inthe omales Bay watershed.

In a related efort, I helped to develop theomales Bay Biodiversity Partnership (www.tomalesbaylie.org), a collaboration o com-

munity members and scientists dedicatedto developing inormation that will improvescience-based management o omales Bay.A primary objective o this project is toconduct a biodiversity inventory, to whichACR Research Associate Rich Stallcup and Icontributed a report compiling all docu-mented bird species occurrences in omalesBay (Kelly and Stallcup 2003).

Dan Gluesenkamp, ACRs HabitatProtection and Restoration Director, andAndrea Williams, o the National Park Ser-vice, recently initiated the nine-county Bay

Area Early Detection Network (BAEDN), apartnership o land managers and invasive-species experts organized to coordinateearly detection o priority invasive plantsbeore serious damage occurs. Dan has alsobeen instrumental in leading the SonomaMarin Weed Management Area, a collabora-tive group o land managers and citizensthat coordinate local expertise and eforts tocontrol invasive weeds (www.marinsonoma-weedmanagement.org). Dans leadershiphelped in the ormation o yet another coali-tion o land managers and restoration ecolo-gists, the Sonoma-Marin Coastal GrasslandsWorking Group, which includes grasslandrestoration expert and Bouverie PreserveResident Biologist Jeanne Wirka.

Last year, ACR biologists working torestore vernal pools at the Bouverie Preserveorganized a workshop or ecologists and con-


The Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan

Tomales Bay Use Management Plan (National Park Service)

The Tomales Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan

The Tomales Bay State Park General Plan

Oil spill impact assessments and associated restoration plans

Caliornia State Oce o Spill Prevention and Response planning documents

Caliornia Coastal Commission Report on the eects o mariculture in DrakesEstero

The San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Environmental Impact Report (CaliorniaCoastal Conservancy)

Designation o Globally Important Bird Areas (American Bird Conservancy)

Key documents designating Tomales Bay as a Ramsar Wetland o InternationalImportance

Development o Marine Protected Areas (Marine Lie Protection Act)

Land development permits, Sonoma County

Lawsons Landing Environmental Impact Report and Master Plan

Department o Public Works assessment o watershed resources in east MarinCounty

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Southern Pacifc Coast Region

Examples beyond central coastal Caliornia

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Conservation Plans orWestern Sandpiper and Dunlin

The Status o Great Blue Heron in British Columbia, B.C. Ministry o Environment,

Lands, and ParksCaliornia Coastal Waterbird Conservation Plan

Channel Islands Harbor Public Works Plan and associated report by theCaliornia Coastal Commission

Position papers on northern Caliornias Headwaters Forest ReserveManagement Plan

Kansas Gap Analysis Project (to identiy species and habitats in need oprotection)

Washington Department o Fish and Wildlie Management Recommendationsor Priority Species

Ontario Ministry o Natural Resources Review o Management Guidelines orGreat Blue Herons

Detailed report to the Caliornia Coastal Commission on mariculture inHumboldt Bay

Caliornia Bird Species o Special Concern, Caliornia Department o Fish andGame

Caliornia Wildlie Habitat Relationships System, Caliornia Interagency WildlieTask Group

Table 1. Examples o planning and policy documents using results rom scientifc publications and reports by Audubon Canyon Ranch (ACR).


13/16

servationists interested in vernal wetlands.Te spectacular success o the workshop ledto continuing communication that deneda regional group o people who are ndingways to protect and restore vernal pools inSonoma County. Although the collaborativegroups discussed above ocus primarily on

natural resource management rather thanpolitical action per se, their success dependson the broad participation and support ostakeholdersand this requires is a consider-able commitment to conservation advocacy.

Cascading inormationAlthough the results o ACR studies are

oen cited by other investigators, in techni-cal articles, books, and reports, it is dicultto know the extent to which scientic resultsare actually applied in government reports,environmental impact statements, planning

documents, and advocacy letters, to helpresolve envirvonmental issues. However,some applications are evident (able 1). In1997, I wrote a review o published evidenceregarding the impacts o personal watercra(jet skis) on birds and other wildlie. Tepaper ew rapidly through electronic com-munications and the Internet, inuencingconservation policy in several areas o theUnited States and in other countries.

Te efects o other work take more time.We recently published recommendationsor the protection o extensive eeding areasor herons and egrets (Kelly et al. 2008; seearticle in thisArdeid). Tis was just a smallstep toward efective restoration across largewetland areas, but subsequent requests orour results rom research centers in Italyand France, dedicated to the conservationo birds and Mediterranean wetlands, sug-

gest a building interest in restoring wholelandscapes.

Locally, scientic contributions by ACRprovided key documentation or recogniz-ing omales Bay as a wetland o interna-tional importance by the Ramsar Conven-tion, an intergovernmental treaty or theconservation o wetlands (seeArdeid2006).Although dicult to track, the applied

results o ACRs scientic work ow as atributary into the global river o conserva-tion action.

Spin-ofs and opportunitiesTe results o basic ecological studies

oen generate opportunities or conserv-

vation. In the 1990s, ACR conducted aninvestigation on the ecology o a rare saltmarsh plant, Point Reyes birds beak (Cor-dylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris; Kelly andFletcher 1994). Te results have been usedin several reports to document habitat val-ues in omales Bay and led to requests orinormation on salt marsh monitoring andmanagement rom agencies and investiga-

tors working in other Caliornia estuaries.Several natural resource agency man-agement plans and reports have used thepublished results o ACR investigations oCommon Ravens, conducted with col-leagues at PRBO Conservation Science(seeArdeid20002002, 2004). Tis workprovided opportunities or consulting withland managers and ranchers, including theNational Park Service which is concernedwith raven predation on nesting waterbirdsand ederally endangered Snowy Plovers.

Recently, we used the results o stud-ies on bird use, vegetation, and wetland

conditions in ACRs Olema Marsh to uelmajor collaborative work with the PointReyes National Seashore on their GiacominiWetlands Restoration Plan (www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/planning_giacomini_wrp.htm; seeArdeid2005). Tis efort targets therestoration o natural hydrologic connectiv-ity across the complex wetland landscape othe southern end o omales Bay.

Dan Gluesenkamps current work onthe environmental efects o oraging bynon-native Wild urkeys (Ardeid2003) hasled to participation in other related work,

including the Caliornia Department o Fish


Public acquisition and protection o properties nearACR lands

Mariculture (oyster arming) in Tomales Bay andDrakes Estero

Stream bank erosionIllegal mountain bike trails

Disturbance o waterbirds by kayaks and small boats

Disturbance o harbor seals

Disturbance o heron and egret colonies

Management o non-native deer

Management o Common Ravens

Control o wild turkeys

Scientifc management o Bolinas lagoon

Protection rom development o private landssurrounding the Point Reyes National Seashore(ailed Farmland Protection Bill)

Control o eral pigs

Government support o Weed Management Areas

Trimming o roadside riparian vegetation in MarinCounty

Protection o National Park wilderness

Impacts o mosquito abatement

Ranching practices aecting Common Ravens

Management o highway culverts

Wildlie disturbance by personal watercrat

Restoration o native grasses

Removal o non-native eucalyptus

Habitat protection at Tomales Dunes

Managed water releases into Lagunitas Creek andthe Tomales Bay estuary

Marine Protected Areas (Marine Lie Protection Act)

Grazing on the oodplains o tributaries to TomalesBay

Table 2. Examples o local conservation issues resulting in recommendations or comments by ACR.

Figure 2. ACR provided key inormation or the Comprehensive Conservation Management or Plan or Marin IslandsNational Wildlie Reuge, near San Raael, where hundreds o herons and egrets nest each year, as seen in this aerial

photograph (www.ws.gov/cno/reuges/marin).


14/16

Efects o invasive species on nitrogen retention

and other issues in the ecology and restoration

o coastal prairie. Je Corbin, Union College.

Carbon addition and mowing as restoration

measures in a coastal Caliornia Grassland.

Brody Sandel, UC Berkeley.

Ecological indicators in West Coast estuaries.Steven Morgan, Susan Anderson, and

others, Pacifc Estuarine Ecosystem Indicator

Research (PEEIR) Consortium [www-bml.

ucdavis.edu/peeir].

Long-term monitoring o the Giacomini

wetland. Lorraine Parsons, Point Reyes

National Seashore.

Analysis o sedimentation in natural and

restored marshes. Lorraine Parsons, Point

Reyes National Seashore.

Efects o hemiparasites on environmental

heterogeneity and species coexistence in salt

marshes. Brenda J. Grewell, UC Davis.

Factors causing summer mortality in Pacic

oysters. Fred Grin, UC Davis Bodega Marine

Lab.

A comparison o carbon cycling and materialexchange in grasslands dominated by native

and exotic grasses in northern Caliornia.

Laurie Koteen, UC Berkeley.

Black Brant counts at Drakes Estero, Tomales

Bay and Bodega Bay. Rod Hug, Santa Rosa,

CA.

Strophariaceae o Caliornia. Peter Werner,

Dennis Desjardin, San Francisco State

University.

Efects o landscape context and recreational

use on carnivores in northern Caliornia. Sara

Reed, UC Berkeley.

Impact o an introduced plant pathogen on

Lyme disease ecology. Cheryl Briggs and

Andrew Swei, UC Berkeley.

Impacts o Wild Turkey(Maleagris galpavo) on

native aviauna in northern Caliornia. Angela

Gillingham, Duke University/Caliornia State

Parks.Efects o planktivorous sh predation on

larvae release patterns o estuarine crabs. Lei

Rasmuson, University o Puget Sound.

Investigtion o ossil Olivella (a marine snail)

rom the Millerton Formation at Toms Point,

Tomales Bay. Daniel Muhs, U.S. Geological

Survey.

A camera trap survey o mammals and birds

at Audubon Canyon Ranch, Rich Tenaza,

University o the Pacifc, and Chris Wemmer,

Caliornia Academy o Sciences.

and Games (DFG) experimental removaland relocation o turkeys rom naturalareas. ACR provided detailed reviews oDFGs 2002 plan or introducing turkeysthroughout the state, which was ultimatelyabandoned, and the dra Strategic Plan orWild urkey Management in Caliornia.

Te nal plan included signicant revisionsregarding the need to manage impacts tonatural areas. Te results o Dans turkeyresearch, currently in preparation, willprovide additional opportunities to advisedecision makers concerned with theprotection o Caliornias wildlands.

ACRs ongoing research on shorebirdsin omales Bay led to my participation indeveloping the U.S. Shorebird Conserva-tion Plan (www.ws.gov/shorebirdplan).Similarly, our work on waterbirds led tocurrent teamwork with other scientists and

natural resource managers to develop theCoastal Caliornia Waterbird ConservationPlan (www.waterbirdconservation.org).Tese plans identiy pressing conserva-tion concerns and provide advice that isultimately incorporated into numerous localand regional planning documents.

ACR on recordACR provides comments and recom-

mendations on numerous managementissues likely to afect the ecological healtho lands surrounding our sanctuaries(able 2). Some issues require a long-terminvolvement with the planning process. For

example, since the early 1990s, ACR has ad-vocated or the protection o sensitive dunesand dune wetlands at Lawsons Landing, atthe northern end o omales Bay (Figure1). Valuable habitats in this area have beendegraded by intensive, unregulated recre-ation and camping or many decades. As

Marin County planners and the CaliorniaCoastal Commission work to develop anEIR, a master plan, and coastal developmentpermits, ACR has repeatedly applied its sci-entic expertise to highlight the conserva-tion implications o proposed plans. As thisprocess continues, we are encouraged bysubstantial improvements in the proposedplans that will ensure better protection othis ecological treasure.

An ongoing commitment to conserva-tion advocacy is critical in responding to theenormous challenge o controlling invasive

plants, and appropriate action requires asolid, conservation-science perspective.Recently, Dan Gluesenkamp testied beorethe Marin Municipal Water District on theuse o integrated pest management to avoidmajor ecological damage by invasive weeds.As president o the Caliornia Invasive PlantCouncil, Dan has worked on many ronts toadvocate or the control o invasive plants,including travel to Washington, D.C., todiscuss invasive plant issues with legislators.

ACRs involvement with conservationplanning and advocacy has grown directlyout o the stewardship o our sanctuaries.Tis involvement has been empowered by

an increasing awareness o ecological con-nections with surrounding lands. Now, theconservation crisis demands deeper com-mitments. ACRs scientic investigations areworking harder to examine conservationoptions, link to planning decisions, and acton what we have learned. Completing this

process is the ultimate goal o conservationscience: to make sure the results o our workare applied by managers and decision mak-ers responsible or protecting the naturalelements and processes o our world.

Reerences citedChan, K. M. A. 2008. Value and advocacy in conservation

biology: crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conserva-tion Biology 22:1-3.

Kelly, J. P., K. Etienne, C. Strong, M. McCaustland, and M.L. Parkes. 2006. Annotated atlas and implications or con-servation o heron and egret nesting colonies in the SanFrancisco Bay area. Audubon Canyon Ranch, Marshall,CA. 236 pp. [www.egret.org/atlas.html ]

Kelly, J. P., and G. Fletcher. 1994. Habitat correlates and dis-tribution o Cordylanthus maritimus (Scrophulariaceae)on omales Bay, Caliornia. Madroo 41:316-327.

Kelly, J. P., and R. W. Stallcup. 2003. Documented occur-rences o bird species on omales Bay, Caliornia, priorto January 2003, and a protocol or uture bird speciesinventories. A report to the Point Reyes National Seashoreand the All axa Biodiversity Inventory o omales Bay.103 pp. [www.egret.org/library.html]

Kelly, J. P., D. Stralberg, K. Etienne, and M. McCaustland.2008. Landscape inuences on the quality o heron andegret colony sites. Wetlands 28:257-275.

Lackey, R. . 2007. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy.Conservation Biology 21:12-17.

Murphy, D. D, and B. R. Noon. 2007. Te role o scientistsin conservation planning on private lands. ConservationBiology 21:25-28.

Soul, M. E., and G. H. Orians. 2001. Conservation biol-ogy: research priorities or the next decade. Island Press,Washington, DC.

Wilson, E. O. 1994. Naturalist. Island Press, Washington, DC.


Visiting investigators


15/16


The Watch:

project updates

Picher Canyon Heron andEgret Project The ates oall nesting attempts at ACRs

Picher Canyon heronry havebeen monitored annuallysince 1967 to track long-termvariation in nesting behavior andreproduction.

Tomales Bay ShorebirdProject Since 1989, we haveconducted annual shorebirdcensuses on Tomales Bay. Eachcensus involves six baywidewinter counts and one baywidecount each in August and Aprilmigration periods. A team o1520 volunteer feld observers is

needed to conduct each count.The data are used to investigatewinter population patterns oshorebirds, local habitat values,and conservation implications.

Tomales Bay Waterbird SurveySince 198990, teams o 1215observers have conducted winterwaterbird censuses rom surveyboats on Tomales Bay. The resultsprovide inormation on habitatvalues and conservation needs omore than 50 species, totaling upto 25,000 birds. We are currently

investigating relationshipsbetween the availability o Pacifcherring roe as ood or winteringwaterbirds and waterbird energyrequirements and abundancein Tomales Bay. Future work willocus on trends and determinantso waterbird variation in TomalesBay.

North Bay Counties Heronand Egret Project Annualmonitoring o reproductiveactivities at all known heron

and egret nesting colonies infve northern Bay Area countiesbegan in 1990. We are currentlyinvestigating the eects olandscape habitat patterns onnesting herons and egrets. ACRs250-pageAnnotated Atlas andImplications for the Conservation ofHeron and Egret Nesting Coloniesin the San Francisco Bay Areaincludes a detailed analysis othe regional status and trendso herons and egrets, evaluatesconservation concerns, andprovides individual accounts

o all known heronries in the

area (available online: www.egret.org/atlas.html). We havealso developed a reerence thatuses Google Earth to show thelocations and status o northernBay Area heronries (www.egret.org/googleearth2.html).

Impacts o Wild Turkeys onForest Ecosystems Invasive,non-native Wild Turkeys arecommon at Bouverie Preserveand throughout most oSonoma County. The goal othis study is to experimentallymeasure the eects o groundoraging by Wild Turkeys onvegetation and invertebratesin the orest ecosystem oBouverie Preserve. The resultswill provide inormation that canbe used by agencies to improve

management and control oturkey populations.

Monitoring and Control oNon-Native Crayfsh JeanneWirka and others are studying thedistribution o non-native signalcrayfsh (Pacifastucus lenisculus) inStuart Creek at Bouverie Preserveand investigating the use obarriers and traps to control thepotential impacts o crayfsh onnative amphibians and otherspecies.

Highway-Generated NitrogenDeposition in Vernal WetlandsDan Gluesenkamp, Stuart Weiss,and Jeanne Wirka are quantiyingthe potential eects o highway-generated nitrogen depositionon Sonoma Valley vernalpools. Enhanced availability onitrogen near highways mightacilitate invasion by non-nativeplant species and the loss obiodiversity in sensitive vernalwetlands.

Cypress Point RestorationWe are conducting a easibilitystudy or restoring the shorelinedunes at ACRs Cypress GroveResearch Center on Tomales Bay.The project includes options orreducing the vulnerability o theResearch Center to rising sealevels.

Plant Species InventoryResident biologists maintaininventories o plant speciesknown to occur on ACRs TomalesBay properties and at Bouverie

and Bolinas Lagoon preserves.

Four Canyons Project ACRsBolinas Lagoon Preserve containsour canyons that drain thewestern slope o Bolinas Ridge.We are enhancing the naturalcomplexity o native vegetationin the lower reaches o these

canyons, repairing disturbed sites,and eradicating or controllinginvasive plant species. This eortwill also increase the resistanceo these habitat areas to invasivepest plants. Native plantpropagation acilities in VolunteerCanyon are being used to growlocally collected plant materialsor restoration.

Annual Surveys and Removalo Non-Native Spartina andHybrids In collaboration withthe San Francisco Estuary Invasive

Spartina Project, Emiko Condesoand Gwen Heistand coordinateand conduct comprehensive feldsurveys or invasive, non-nativeSpartina in the shoreline marsheso Tomales Bay and BolinasLagoon.

Saltmarsh Ice Plant RemovalWe have eradicated non-nativeice plant rom marshes andupland edges at Toms Pointon Tomales Bay, and nativevegetation has recruited intoareas where ice plant was once

dominant.

Eradication oElytrigiapontica ssp.ponticaElytrigiais an invasive, non-nativeperennial grass that orms densepopulations in seasonal wetlandsites. At Bouverie Preserve, we areeliminating a patch oElytrigiausing manual removal and lightstarvation/solarization (blackplastic tarps), and herbicide spottreatments to remove invasiveoutlier patches.

Nest Boxes Tony Gilbertmaintains Western Bluebirdnest boxes in the CypressGrove grasslands. Rich Stallcupmaintains several Wood Ducknest boxes along Bear ValleyCreek in ACRs Olema Marsh.

Restoration o Coastal Dunesby Removal oAmmophilaarenariaAmmophila arenariais a highly invasive, non-nativeplant that alters the topographyand unction o coastal dunes.

This project at ACRs Toms Point,

on Tomales Bay, is helping toprotect native species thatdepend on mobile duneecosystems.

Monitoring and Eradicationo Perennial Pepperweed inTomales Bay Invasive, non-native pepperweed (Lepidiumlatifolium) is known to quicklycover oodplains and estuarinewetlands, compete with nativespecies, and alter habitatvalues. We are using a variety omethods to remove and monitorthe frst known inestations inTomales Bay and, we hope,prevent urther invasion. A recentbaywide survey o Tomales Baysuggested that the problemis currently limited to a ewlocations along Walker Creek and

a couple o locations at the southend o the bay.

Vernal Pool Restoration andReintroduction o ImperiledPlants Dan Gluesenkamp,Jeanne Wirka, and Sherry Adamsare restoring habitat conditionsin the vernal pools at BouveriePreserve. The project includes theremoval o problematic invasiveplants and reestablishment o theederally listed Sonoma sunshine(Blennosperma bakeri) andCaliornia species o conservation

concern dwar downingia(Downingia pusilla).The workinvolves considerable manualeort by volunteers, propagationand planting o native plants, useo prescribed fre, cattle grazing,and monitoring o changesin vegetation and hydrology.Successul introduction oSonoma sunshine into the vernalpools o Bouverie Preserve inJanuary 2008 was suggested bythe maturation and owering othis plant the ollowing spring.


16/16

the

Ardeid

Ardeid (Ar-DEE-id), N., reers to

any member o the amily

Ardeidae, which includes herons,

egrets, and bitterns.

Te Ardeidis published annually by Audubon Canyon Ranch as an ofering to eld

observers, volunteers, and supporters o ACR Conservation Science and Habitat

Protection. To receive Te Ardeid, please call or write to the Cypress Grove Research

Center. Subscriptions are available ree o charge; however, contributions are

grateully accepted. 2008 Audubon Canyon Ranch. Printed on recycled paper.

Managing Editor, John Kelly. Layout design by Claire Peaslee. www.egret.org

AUDUBON CANYON RANCH IS A SYSTEM OF WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES

AND CENTERS FOR NATURE EDUCATION.

BOLI

Conservation Science

and Habitat Protection

at Audubon Canyon Ranch

The inlet channel o Bolinas Lagoon.

Science-based conservation action see page 9

Audubon Canyon Ranch4900 State Route One, Stinson Beach, CA 94970

Cypress Grove Research CenterP.O. Box 808

Marshall, CA 94940(415) 663-8203

Non-proft

Organization

PAID

MailCom

20022008KEN

NETH&GABRIELLEADELMAN,

CALIFORNIA

COASTALRECORDSPROJECT,W

WW.C

ALIFORNIACOASTLINE.O

RG

Documents

The Ardeid Newsletter, 2008 ~ Audubon Canyon Ranch