1 / 31

National Marsh Bird Monitoring: Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here 16 January 2013

National Marsh Bird Monitoring: Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here 16 January 2013. Mark Seamans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, CO. Webinar Outline. Background History of Marsh Bird Monitoring Survey Protocol and Sampling Design Pilot Study Methods Results

zorion
Download Presentation

National Marsh Bird Monitoring: Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here 16 January 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Marsh Bird Monitoring:Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here16 January 2013 Mark Seamans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, CO

  2. Webinar Outline • Background • History of Marsh Bird Monitoring • Survey Protocol and Sampling Design • Pilot Study • Methods • Results • Transition from Pilot to Operational Program

  3. Target Species • Rallidae: clapper rail, black rail, king rail, sora, Virginia rail, and yellow rail, common moorhen, purple gallinule, American Coot, purple swamphen • Ardeidae: American bittern, least bittern • Aramidae: limpkin • Podicipedidae: pied-billed grebe • Scolopacidae: Wilson’s snipe

  4. Background • Workshops • 1998, 2006, 2011 • King Rail Conservation Plan 2006 • WaterbirdConservation for the Americas (Waterbirds Initiative) 2006 Assessment • AFWA-Webless Funding Priorities Report 2008 • Independent research

  5. Background Continued • Survey Protocol • Courtney Conway • http://www.cals.arizona.edu/research/azfwru/NationalMarshBird/ • Details of Protocol • Study Design • Johnson, D. H., J. P. Gibbs, M. Herzog, S. Lor, N. D. Niemuth, C. A. Ribic, M. Seamans, T. L. Shaffer, W. G. Shriver, S. V. Stehman, and W. L. Thompson. 2009. A sampling design framework for monitoring secretive marshbirds. Waterbirds 32:230-215.

  6. Example of Hexagon Selection

  7. Example of Point Selection in Hexes

  8. Pilot Study • Wisconsin 2008 • Idaho 2009 – 2010 • Kentucky 2009 • New York 2009 • Florida 2010 • Michigan 2010 • Ohio 2011

  9. HQ

  10. Objectives of Pilot • Do protocol and design work together • Sampling effort to achieve certain levels of precision for abundance or trend estimates. This included thoughts on how to stratify • As pilot progressed shifted focus to work under a new paradigm • How to use monitoring to address management issues • Can monitoring meet information needs for species of greatest concern

  11. Methods • The Data • repeat visits within & among years, strata • Individuals identified (counted) each survey • Distance to individual estimated • Two-stage sample (variance estimator) • Covariates related to detection and abundance • Analysis • Binomial Mixture Model with Horvitz-Thompson Estimator • Detection related to distance done first • Zero-inflated Poisson model with Bayesian Framework • Abundance (& Occupancy) estimated by strata & year

  12. RESULTS

  13. Pilot Results: Abundance

  14. Pilot Results: Abundance

  15. Pilot Results: Occupancy Florida Clapper Rail 2010: φ = 0.81 (0.70-0.92) 95% CI 2011: φ = 0.90 (0.80-0.97) Idaho Sora High Quality Stratum 2009: φ = 0.76 (0.63-0.83) 2010:φ = 0.86 (0.76-0.95) General Stratum 2009: φ = 0.38 (0.18-0.76) 2010: φ = 0.21 (0.10-0.39) Wisconsin Sora 2009: φ = 0.59 (0.50-0.70) 2010: φ = 0.49 (0.38-0.64) 2011: φ = 0.35 (0.25-0.54)

  16. Clapper Rail Detection Probability

  17. Detection Probability of American Bittern in Idaho (A) and the Upper Midwest (B)

  18. Precision of N as Function of % PSUs Surveyed

  19. Precision of N as Function of # PSUs Surveyed

  20. Partitioning Variance

  21. Inferences from Pilot • There are a lot of some species on the landscape • Rare species are an issue • Omnibus approach to monitoring and what we did during the Pilot

  22. Inferences Cont. • What can omnibus approach give us? • Inform harvest management, except for KIRA • Inform state conservation plans? Depends. • May reveal general habitat affinities • What omnibus approach cannot give us. • An assessment of KIRA or BLRA populations • Why they are declining and what to do about it • How any species responds to habitat management • Water levels, burning, invasive management, etc.

  23. Proposed Way Forward • Mix of omnibus and “management monitoring” • Mix of two would give us: • Experimental comparisons • Efficient way to meet needs of multi-species survey

  24. King Rail Management

  25. Data can be used to: • Nwrp = abundance from treatment areas • Ngen = abundance from general whole area • H0: Dwrp=Dgen • Ntotal = Nwrp+Ngen(a status assessment)

  26. Marsh Bird Conservation Program Steps to Conserving & Managing Marsh Birds • Define Conservation Issues • Develop Hypotheses or Management Objectives • Develop & Implement Management Actions • Monitor • Learn and repeat as necessary

More Related