Search

Dubois, Laurent, Kaiama L. Glover, Nadeve Menard, Millery Polyne, and Chantalle R Verna, eds. The Haiti Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2020. The Haiti Reader: History, [...]

Wetlands provide essential habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. In the once wetland‐rich Prairie Pothole Region and adjacent areas of central North America, many wetlands have been converted to agricultural production. Many remaining wetlands experience ecological change via the invasion and spread of non‐native plant species, such as non‐native narrowleaf (Typha angustifolia) and hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca), which spread aggressively and displace native vegetation, especially in large, impounded wetlands. Management of wetlands in these landscapes often includes broad‐scale herbicide application intended to break up mats of cattail and restore areas to more wildlife‐friendly conditions. Although restoration of wildlife habitat is a common goal of such management, marshbird response to invasive cattail control is poorly understood. To evaluate the effects of cattail management on wetland wildlife, we conducted standardized call‐broadcast surveys for 5 species of marshbirds at 9 study sites that included survey locations associated with areas treated with herbicide and paired areas not treated with herbicide in wetland impoundments in northwestern Minnesota, USA, using a before‐after, control‐impact study design. We surveyed American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), least bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis), pied‐billed grebes (Podilymbus podiceps), soras (Porzana carolina), and Virginia rails (Rallus limicola) during the breeding season prior to herbicide application (late summer and early autumn of 2015) and during the 3 breeding seasons after herbicide application (2016–2018). We modeled species counts using a generalized linear mixed model with year‐by‐treatment interactions as fixed effects and site as a random effect. Before herbicide application, expected mean counts did not differ between treatment and control survey locations. Three years post‐treatment, we detected significant increases in expected mean counts at treatment compared to control survey locations for soras (t193 = −3.373, P = 0.020) and Virginia rails (t193 = −3.167, P = 0.037), and point estimates for all species except least bittern were higher at treatment survey locations. Overall, our results suggest that these marshbird species responded positively to herbicide control of invasive cattail and that breeding marshbirds in these and similar wetland systems may experience positive population response over a period of at least 3 years following treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hairy (Dryobates villosus) and downy (Dryobates pubescens) woodpeckers occur in high densities in residential areas of the eastern United States. In many areas of their range, they cause damage to wooden structures through foraging, excavation of nesting cavities, and drumming behaviors, causing requests for allowable take permits. Both species hold year‐round territories, which could make them vulnerable to local extirpation with excess take. To meet the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty act, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requested scientifically informed evaluation of take to minimize population effects as part of its approach to reduce human–wildlife conflict. We used a prescribed take approach, which uses data from population, demographic, and management parameter estimates to determine the allowable take from Louisiana to Minnesota and all states east. Furthermore, we used 2 different methods of estimating growth rates to control for demographic uncertainties. The resulting estimates provide take at the state and USFWS regional scales to improve stakeholder choices when setting allowable take. Current authorized take (2016–2018) is below the take that could be sustained by current populations, and current rates of take are not likely to cause population‐level effects. These results were largely consistent across methodologies for calculating the rate of growth for both species. Take still needs to be managed to prevent local extirpation of these resident species. Allowable take estimates should be periodically updated to reflect changing management and population needs for both species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service incorporate information from annual aerial and ground counts of waterfowl into harvest management strategies. Timing of population surveys isthought to be optimal for early nesting species but may not reliablyreflect the status of species with later migration chronology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of survey timing on diving duck and duck brood abundance indices in eastern South Dakota. Findings indicate that timing of aerial breeding surveys occurred too early in eastern South Dakota to accurately reflect diving duck population status because birds had not yet settled into breeding habitats and aerial production surveys did not coincide with peak duck brood abundance. Diving duck abundance from aerial surveys conducted during 10-17 May were higher than indices from ground surveys conducted 2 weeks later because lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) were still migrating through eastern South Dakota. Ground-survey estimates of redhead (Aythya americana) and canvasback (Aythya valisineria) abundance exceeded the upper limit of 95% confidence intervals for aerial survey estimates. Results from our second year of study showed an 11-fold decrease in lesser scaup abundance and an 8-fold decrease in ring-necked duck abundance in the two weeks following aerial breeding surveys. Brood abundance of dabbling and diving ducks peaked 1-1.5 months after aerial production surveys conducted in early July. Late-nesting indicescalculated from aerial surveys were unrelated (P = 0.21) to number of late-hatching broods, whereas number of broods hatching after aerial surveys was correlated with late-nesting indices from ground surveys (r2 = 0.74, P < 0.01) and with number of July ponds (r2 = 0.77, P < 0.01). We encourage scientists to initiate a more thorough evaluation of survey biases to ensure that trends accuratel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]