Blueberry/forestryBlueberry/forestry : a : a reasonable reasonable accommodationaccommodation ??

CONFOR 2008CONFOR 2008

Julie Lavoie (UQAC)Julie Lavoie (UQAC)Jacques Ibarzabal (UQAC) Jacques Ibarzabal (UQAC)

Louis Imbeau (UQAT)Louis Imbeau (UQAT)

February 2008February 2008

1.1. ContextContext

• Blue gold …Blue gold … Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean: Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean:

Lowbush blueberry fields since 1963 Lowbush blueberry fields since 1963 2005 = 20 000 ha et 35 M$ (harvest)2005 = 20 000 ha et 35 M$ (harvest)

• New territories = TSFMANew territories = TSFMA(Timber Supply and Forest Management Agreement)(Timber Supply and Forest Management Agreement)

• Blueberry/forestry conceptBlueberry/forestry concept

• Often on jack pine Often on jack pine ((Pinus banksianaPinus banksiana)) stands stands Low land, sandy, well-drained and acid soils, Low land, sandy, well-drained and acid soils, native lowbush blueberry native lowbush blueberry

Management impact on wildlife?Management impact on wildlife?

2.2. ProblematicProblematic

Habitat lost and fragmentationHabitat lost and fragmentation

Lost attributes Lost attributes Structural changesStructural changes

2. Problematic2. Problematic

Lowbush blueberry fieldsLowbush blueberry fields

• Fauna in jack pine forest community Fauna in jack pine forest community poorly unknown. poorly unknown.

• Jack pine stands targeted for Jack pine stands targeted for blueberry/forestry, but these stands are blueberry/forestry, but these stands are under anthropic pressuresunder anthropic pressures (Lac-Saint-Jean region).(Lac-Saint-Jean region).

• Connecticut warblerConnecticut warbler ((Oporornis agilisOporornis agilis)) a a rarerare species associated to this habitatspecies associated to this habitat

3. Objective3. ObjectiveAssess blueberry/forestry impact on wildlife presence Assess blueberry/forestry impact on wildlife presence (birds, small and medium mammals) and their habitat(birds, small and medium mammals) and their habitat

Blueberry/forestryBlueberry/forestry

Jack pine standsJack pine stands

Lowbush Lowbush blueberry fieldsblueberry fields

4. Methods4. Methods

4.1 Study area4.1 Study area

• 15 blueberry/forestry15 blueberry/forestry

(166 ha)(166 ha)

15 lowbush blueberry15 lowbush blueberry fields fields

15 jack pine stands15 jack pine stands

4. Methods4. Methods

4.2 Wildlife surveys4.2 Wildlife surveys

• Habitat (vegetation plot) Habitat (vegetation plot) 2006-072006-07

• Small mammals (mortal traps) Small mammals (mortal traps) 2006-072006-07

• Medium mammals (track counts) Medium mammals (track counts) 20072007

Blueberry 60 m

Forest (3*20m)

Blueberry 60 m

• Birds (point-counts)Birds (point-counts)3 visits 3 visits 4:30 and 9:00 AM4:30 and 9:00 AM

4. Methods4. Methods

4.2 Wildlife surveys4.2 Wildlife surveys

100 m– 10 min passive point-counts 10 min passive point-counts – 5 min playback5 min playback– 5 min mobbing calls of BCCH5 min mobbing calls of BCCH– 5 min passive point-counts5 min passive point-counts

• Model comparison methods (QAICModel comparison methods (QAICcc) ) ((Burnham & Anderson, 2002Burnham & Anderson, 2002))

4.3 Statistical analysis4.3 Statistical analysis

4. Methods4. Methods

IDID Visit 1Visit 1 Visit 2Visit 2 Visit 3Visit 3

FA01FA01 00 00 00

FA02FA02 11 00 00

FA03FA03 11 11 00

FA04FA04 11 11 11

……

• Detection probabilityDetection probability (Mackenzie et al., 2006) (Mackenzie et al., 2006) PRESENCE 2.1 programPRESENCE 2.1 program

• Presence-absence repeated surveysPresence-absence repeated surveys

Table 1. Detection historyTable 1. Detection history

• Multimodel inference Multimodel inference ((Burnham & Anderson, 2002Burnham & Anderson, 2002))

4.3 Statistical analysis4.3 Statistical analysis

4. Methods4. Methods

• 21 models/species 21 models/species

• Occupancy variablesOccupancy variables ((ΨΨ):): % Harvested% Harvested% Harvested% Harvested22

% Deciduous tree% Deciduous tree

• Detection variablesDetection variables (p): (p): % Harvested% HarvestedObserverObserverTime since sunriseTime since sunriseJulian dayJulian day

4.3 Statistical analysis4.3 Statistical analysis

4. Methods4. Methods

% Harvested % Harvested

OccupancyOccupancy Open-habitat speciesOpen-habitat speciesForest-dwelling speciesForest-dwelling species

Ubiquitous speciesUbiquitous speciesEdge speciesEdge species

5. Preliminary results5. Preliminary results

SpeciesSpecies % H% H % H% H2 2 % D% D % H% H ObsObs TimeTime JDJD

WTSPWTSP XX

GCKIGCKI XX

MYWAMYWA XX

NAWANAWA XX

SOVI*SOVI* XX

RCKIRCKI XX

HETHHETH

BCCHBCCH*Without model averaging*Without model averaging

Table 2. Variables affecting Table 2. Variables affecting occupancyoccupancy or or detectiondetection after model averaging for birds (2007 survey) after model averaging for birds (2007 survey)

05

1015202530354045

Nb

vis

its w

ith d

ete

ctio

n

Jack pinestands

Blueberry/forestry

Lowbushblueberry fields

Treatment

WTSP

5. Preliminary results5. Preliminary results

Figure 1. Number of visits with detection per treatment for the White-Figure 1. Number of visits with detection per treatment for the White-

throated sparrowthroated sparrow ((Zonotrichia albicollisZonotrichia albicollis )

EdgeEdgeOccupancyOccupancy

% Harvested% Harvested

05

1015202530354045

Nb

visi

ts w

ith d

etec

tion

Jack pinestands

Blueberry/forestry

Lowbushblueberry fields

Treatment

GCKI

MYWA

NAWA

5. Preliminary results5. Preliminary results

Figure 2. Number of visits with detection per treatment for Figure 2. Number of visits with detection per treatment for Golden-crowned kinglet Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa(Regulus satrapa),), Yellow-rumped warbler Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata)(Dendroica coronata) and Nashville warbler,and Nashville warbler,

(Vermivora ruficapilla)(Vermivora ruficapilla)

Forest-dwelling speciesForest-dwelling species

05

1015202530354045

Nb

visi

ts w

ith d

etec

tion

Jack pinestands

Blueberry/forestry

Lowbushblueberry fields

Treatment

HETH

5. Preliminary results5. Preliminary results

Figure 3. Number of visits with detection per treatment for Figure 3. Number of visits with detection per treatment for hermit thrush hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus)(Catharus guttatus)

OccupancyOccupancy

% Harvested% Harvested

UbiquitousUbiquitous

6. Conclusions6. Conclusions

Reasonable accommodation …Reasonable accommodation …Birds (preliminary results)Birds (preliminary results)

Ubiquitous speciesUbiquitous species

Edge speciesEdge species

Forest-dwelling speciesForest-dwelling species

Others guildsOthers guilds

CONFOR 2009: Saguenay !!!CONFOR 2009: Saguenay !!!

Thanks• Director and codirector:Director and codirector: Jacques Ibarzabal, Louis Imbeau Jacques Ibarzabal, Louis Imbeau • Field team:Field team: Stéphane Blais, Raphaël Demers, Mélanie Stéphane Blais, Raphaël Demers, Mélanie

Meunier, Frédéric Fortin, Jessy Pronovost, Judith Boulianne, Meunier, Frédéric Fortin, Jessy Pronovost, Judith Boulianne, Joël Lacasse, Ludovic Béland, Audrey SanfaçonJoël Lacasse, Ludovic Béland, Audrey Sanfaçon

• CAFN:CAFN: Victor Boulianne, Ursule Bouchard Victor Boulianne, Ursule Bouchard• AGIR:AGIR: Luc Simard, Michel Bouchard, Julie Moreau Luc Simard, Michel Bouchard, Julie Moreau • Study design and analysis:Study design and analysis: Marc Mazerolle, Martin-Hugues St- Marc Mazerolle, Martin-Hugues St-

Laurent, Christian RoyLaurent, Christian Roy• Ministry:Ministry: Christian Bélanger, Claude Dussault, Gilles Lupien Christian Bélanger, Claude Dussault, Gilles Lupien• COASLSJ:COASLSJ: Dominique Lavoie Dominique Lavoie

Financial supports and partners Financial supports and partners

An An accommodatiaccommodation for me ???on for me ???

Questions ?Questions ?