Shorebird food energy shortfalls and the effectiveness of habitat incentive programs in record wet, dry, and warm years.

Programs that incentivize private landowners to create habitats that offset losses due to conversion and climate change are increasingly being used to bolster sensitive wildlife populations. In the Central Valley of California, shorebird habitat incentive programs pay landowners to create additional habitat during the non‐breeding season by flooding their fields. However, it remains unclear how successful these programs have been in supporting baseline shorebird population needs or meeting established population goals, particularly in the face of changing environmental conditions. To address these questions, we used bioenergetics modeling to estimate shorebird food energy needs over four consecutive years that had the highest annual mean air temperatures ever recorded in California, and included years of extreme drought, as well as the second wettest winter on record. Our objectives were to (1) characterize annual variability in the timing and magnitude of shorebird food energy shortfalls, (2) estimate the contributions that incentive programs made to meeting these needs, and (3) develop recommendations for implementation of future habitat programs to advance shorebird conservation in the region. Overall, we found a high level of consistency in the timing and magnitude of habitat shortfalls, especially in fall, despite large differences in annual rainfall, a result that was unexpected, but that emphasizes how highly managed the hydrological system is in the Central Valley. We also found that the magnitude of both fall and spring energy shortfalls increased, relative to recent (2007–2014) estimates, perhaps due to aberrantly warm conditions. Incentive programs implemented to provide supplemental habitat were somewhat effective in reducing shortfalls for the assumed baseline population, but there were consistent unmet habitat needs when there were not enough shallow open water foraging areas available. Strategies to offset these remaining food energy deficits include scaling up habitat investments, adjusting the timing of habitat programs to better match the migration patterns of the birds, and adapting programs to new geographies. To the extent that there is variability in annual habitat need we recommend implementing a dynamic conservation approach. This involves scaling the amount of additional habitat created to match the shifting needs of the birds to maximize return on investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]