breeding productivity and conservation of great salt lake
TRANSCRIPT
Research on the Breeding Productivity Research on the Breeding Productivity Research on the Breeding Productivity, Research on the Breeding Productivity, Ecology and Behavior of Great Salt Lake Ecology and Behavior of Great Salt Lake
Shorebirds:Shorebirds:Shorebirds:Shorebirds:Results of the first 5 yearsResults of the first 5 years
John CavittJohn CavittDepartment of ZoologyDepartment of ZoologyWeber State UniversityWeber State University
Ogden, UT Ogden, UT
Primary Goal ‐maintain healthy, self‐sustaining populations
HOW?
Healthy population = productivity sufficient to balance
HOW?
y p p p yadult & juvenile mortality
2
l bl h dCentral problem exists when counts are used to assess population health –
populations may experience productivity problems and p p y p p y pyet go undetected because of immigration from healthy sources.
3
Shorebird Productivity
Nest
y
• Clutch size• Hatchability• # Young • Nesting success
Brood Period
• Young survival during parental care – up to fledgingfledging
4
Research ObjectivesResearch ObjectivesResearch ObjectivesResearch Objectives
•• Effects of predator removal on shorebird Effects of predator removal on shorebird Effects of predator removal on shorebird Effects of predator removal on shorebird nesting successnesting success
•• Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators•• Effects of land management and habitat on Effects of land management and habitat on
nesting successnesting successnesting successnesting success•• Brood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selection•• Effects of heavy metal contamination on Effects of heavy metal contamination on •• Effects of heavy metal contamination on Effects of heavy metal contamination on
shorebirdsshorebirds
ucce
ssfu
lof
Nes
ts S
ropo
rtio
n o
P
Figure 1 Comparison of waterfowl nesting success reported inFigure 1. Comparison of waterfowl nesting success reported inthe literature before (green bars) and after (tan bars)documented increases in raccoon populations.
Change in Predator C itCommunity Increased human activity, introduced species (carp), and landscape change affected predator community
Virtually absent from GSL prior to 1980’s
BEAR
OGBAY
SHORE
ANTELOPE ISLAND
FARM
SL SEWERISSR
SALTTIMPIE
3 – 15 plots located/site
10
All plots searched every 3 – 4 days
• Nests checked every 3 - 4 days
• Nest productivity data collected (CS, hatchability, # young to nest-leaving, nesting success) g )
• Nest fate
• Nest site nest plots characterized• Nest site, nest plots characterized
• 2007 brood survival collected
11
13
Eff t f d t lEff t f d t lEffects of predator removalEffects of predator removal
BEAR
OGBAOGBA
SHORANTE
SHOR
FARM
CANL
ISSR
SALT
ds
Rem
oved
f Pre
dato
rsN
umbe
r of
Tota
l
Figure 4 Number of mammalian predators removed each yearFigure 4. Number of mammalian predators removed each year (data from 2007 were unavailable at the time of this printing).
2005 Depredated 2006
ed N
ests
0 6
0.82005
0.8
1.0Depredated Deserted Flooded Fail Unknown
d N
ests
2006
ortio
n of
Fail
e
0.4
0.680 112
0.4
0.6 75 151 110 70 9
rtion
s of F
ailed
Prop
o
0.20.2Pr
opor
0.0BEAR FARM
0.0BEAR FARM ISSR SHORE SL SEWER
17
Reduced predator densities
*Control Total number of nests
Figure 5. % Daily survival (+ SE) of AMAV (A) and BNST (B) nests atsites with reduced predator densities and control sitessites with reduced predator densities and control sites.
Table 1. Effects of reduced predator densities on AMAV and BNST daily survival rate Mayfield nestingAMAV and BNST daily survival rate. Mayfield nesting success estimates are included below each DSR.
Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators
Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators
Bear River Migratory Bird RefugeJune 24, 2007June 24, 2007
4:09 am
22
Bear River Migratory Bird RefugeO – Line DikeO Line DikeJune 9, 2007 3:19 am
23
Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators
SPECIES SPECIES SITE SITE NEST FATENEST FATE REASONREASONSPECIES SPECIES SITE SITE NEST FATENEST FATE REASONREASONLBCULBCU BEARBEAR FAILFAIL RavenRavenLBCULBCU BEARBEAR SUCCESSSUCCESS HatchHatchAMAVAMAV BEARBEAR FAILFAIL RaccoonRaccoonAMAVAMAV BEARBEAR FAILFAIL Raccoon Raccoon AMAVAMAV FARMFARM FAIL FAIL RaccoonRaccoonAMAVAMAV FARMFARM FAIL FAIL DesertedDesertedAMAVAMAV FARMFARM SUCCESSSUCCESS HatchHatchBNSTBNST FARMFARM FAILFAIL D t dD t dBNSTBNST FARMFARM FAILFAIL DesertedDesertedMALLMALL BEARBEAR FAILFAIL Skunk and RaccoonSkunk and RaccoonGADWGADW BEARBEAR FAILFAIL SkunkSkunk
Effects of land managementEffects of land managementgg
Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management AreaArea
1.02American Avocets 2003
Rat
e
0.98
1.00
y S
urvi
val
0.94
0.96
Dai
ly
0.90
0.92
Distance from Dike (m) 0 100 200 300 400 500
0.88
Linear Regression F = 0.98; P = 0.360; R2 = 0.141
0.994American Avocets 2006
Rat
e
0.988
0.990
0.992
y S
urvi
val
0 982
0.984
0.986
Dai
ly
0.978
0.980
0.982
Distance from Dike (m)0 100 200 300 400 500
0.976
3rd Order Polynomial Regression F = 7.36; P = 0.042; R2 = 0.815
1.00American Avocets 2007
Rat
e
0.98
0.99
Surv
ival
0.96
0.97
Dai
ly
0.94
0.95
Distance from Dike (m)0 100 200 300 400 500
0.93
2nd Order Polynomial Regression F = 109.1; P < 0.001; R2 = 0.973
Emergent vegetation (Phragmites) increased from
25 ha to 130 ha
= 420% increase
34
Brood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selection
37
Brood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selection
BAND 84466179
TOTAL DISTANCE (m) 891.95
N DAYS 10N DAYS 10
DISTANCE/DAY (m) 89.20
POLYGON AREA (ha) 2.2287
Brood Brood survival survival and and habitat habitat sselectionelectionBrood Brood survival survival and and habitat habitat sselectionelection
BAND TOTAL DISTANCE ( ) N DAYS DISTANCE/DAY ( ) POLYGON AREA (h )BAND TOTAL DISTANCE (m) N DAYS DISTANCE/DAY (m) POLYGON AREA (ha)
84466136 447.16 3 149.05 1.2567
84466137 150.99 3 50.33 0.2003
84466138 224.07 6 37.35 0.1081
84466159 49.82 1 49.82 N/A
84466162 41.85 2 20.93 N/A
84466164 42.2 1 42.20 N/A
84466170 57 42 4 14 36 0 014684466170 57.42 4 14.36 0.0146
84466171 162.78 1 162.78 N/A
84466172 178.18 3 59.39 0.1652
84466173 376.53 2 188.27 N/A
84466174 8.94 1 8.94 N/A
84466175 95.16 3 31.72 0.0453
84466176 210.02 1 210.02 N/A
84466179 891 95 10 89 20 2 228784466179 891.95 10 89.20 2.2287
84466180 930.1 7 132.87 1.6602
84466181 50.65 2 25.33 N.A
Average Distance Moved / Day = 79 5 m/ Day = 79.5 m
Average Home Range g gSize = 1.94 ha
Effects of heavy metal contamination on Effects of heavy metal contamination on shorebirdsshorebirds
The problem -p• More than 100 years of mining have resulted
i t i ti i S lt L k V ll ifin contamination in Salt Lake Valley aquifer
Bingham Canyon Copper Mine
Lawsuit resulted in $35 milion remediation settlement
Jordan Valley Water District
• Construction of Reverse Osmosis Treatment Facility –produce +8000 acre-feet of drinking water/year
• Brine (wastewater = high in Se) pumped to Great Salt Lake
A h hAt high concentrations Se causes
• embryo malformation and mortality• chick and adult mortalitychick and adult mortality
Project ObjectivesProject Objectives
• Determine ambient concentrations of Se in Determine ambient concentrations of Se in water, sediment and in macroinvertebrates from each siteeach site
• Determine diet of AMAV & BNST at each study sitesite
SeSeSeSe
OGBAY
ANTELOPE ISLAND
SALT
MethodsMethodsMethodsMethods
•• Water, sediment and Water, sediment and macroinvertebratesmacroinvertebratescollected at each site from foraging areas.collected at each site from foraging areas.
•• Samples prepared Samples prepared for for SeSe analysis analysis Samples prepared Samples prepared for for SeSe analysis analysis
MethodsMethodsMethodsMethods
•• Eggs randomly collected from subset of nests at Eggs randomly collected from subset of nests at each siteeach site
•• Embryos dissected Embryos dissected examined and prepared for examined and prepared for yy p pp pSeSe analysisanalysis
MethodsMethodsMethodsMethods
•• Adults collected from each siteAdults collected from each site•• Dissected, stomach contents examined Dissected, stomach contents examined •• Blood and liver prepared for Blood and liver prepared for SeSe analysisanalysisBlood and liver prepared for Blood and liver prepared for SeSe analysisanalysis
35.03
L25.0
30.0
Se u
g/L
0 6
0.8
20.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
3 3
0.0
Antelope Island Ogden Bay Saltair
Median Median SeSe concentration from water samples at each foraging siteconcentration from water samples at each foraging sitedfdf((HH = 7.2, = 7.2, dfdf = 2, = 2, PP = 0.004)= 0.004)
40
50
5 AMAV blood Se concentrations (F2,14 = 2.276, P = 0.149)
Blood
Se u
g/g
20
30
4
5
S
0
10
0
Antelope Island SaltairOgden
Bay
25
305Liver
15
20
25
e ug
/g
5
5
AMAV liver Se concentrations (F2,14 = 3.79, P = 0.053)
5
10
15S 5
0
Antelope Island SaltairOgden
Bay
Egg Se Concentration
10
Egg Se Concentration
8
8b
Se ug/g
4
6
21a 16a
2
21a 16a
0
AntelopeIsland
OgdenBay
Saltairy
H = 15.85, df = 2, P = 0.001
Super‐simplified Conceptual ModelSe flowSe flow
12 26
1.56
12.26
0.292.26
(ppm)
Great Salt Lake Avian Productivity StudyGreat Salt Lake Avian Productivity Study
Utah Wetlands Utah Wetlands FoundationFoundation
North Davis County Sewer DistrictNorth Davis County Sewer District
59
45
35
40
45
( ug/
g)
30
35
Live
r Se
20
25
10
15
Blood Se (ug/g)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
5
F1,18= 15.29, P = 0.001, r2 = 0.474; y = 7.37 + 0.422x
250
300
2003200420052006
AMAV
First nests initiated
mbe
r of N
ests
100
150
200First nests initiated
AMAV = April 10
Num
0
50BNST = April 20
Last nests initiated Julian Day of Nest Inititaion
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
120
2003 BNST
by June 29
of N
ests
60
80
100 200420052006Extreme date –
July 9, 2004
Num
ber
0
20
40
Julian Day of Nest Initiation80 100 120 140 160 180 200
e 1.0020042005
AMAV
viva
l Rat
e0.98
0.99
2005
Dai
ly S
urv
0 96
0.97
J li D t f N t I iti ti
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
D
0.95
0.96
Julian Date of Nest Initiation
2004 – F = 10.5; df = 1,4; P = 0.032;
2005 – F = 3.9; df = 1, 6; P = 0.11
62
63