2017 Summary of Landbird Projects

Boreal Partners in Flight

20 February 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

Compiler’s Note ............................................................................................................................ 4

(BCR 2) Demographic mechanisms of avian range expansions and contractions along the boreal-

(BCR 3) Potential climate-mediated impacts on the reproductive output of landbirds at the

(BCR 3, 4) Monitoring landbirds in the NPS Arctic and Central Alaska Inventory and

(BCR 4) Biodiversity Project, Yukon Research Center, Yukon Territory: summary of landbird

(BCR 4) Breeding bird surveys and research efforts on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson,

(BCR 4) Cavity and tree preferences of winter roosting birds and resting mammals in southern

(BCR 4) Monitoring territory occupancy and reproductive success of Golden Eagles and

(BCR 4) Simulating avian responses to climate-mediated changes in future fire regimes across

(BCR 4) Willow and Rock Ptarmigan distribution and movement studies in south-central and

(BCR 4, 5) Arrival date and across season detectability of songbirds on the Kenai National

(BCR 5) Olive-sided Flycatchers in southeast Alaska: adult survival, migration, citizen surveys,

(BCR 6) Additive and interactive cumulative effects on boreal landbirds: winners and losers in a

2018 Project summaries by Bird Conservation Region (BCR) ................................................ 5 (BCR 2) Arthropods and passerine diet: effects of shrub expansion in western Alaska ................ 5

arctic transitions zone ............................................................................................................... 5 (BCR 2) Landbird monitoring on Kodiak Island, Alaska, 2017 ..................................................... 6 (BCR 2, 4) Alaska Swallow Monitoring Network.......................................................................... 8

Colville River, Alaska............................................................................................................... 9

Monitoring Networks.............................................................................................................. 10

research, 2017 update.............................................................................................................. 11

Alaska, 2017 update................................................................................................................ 14

Yukon………………………………………………………………………………………...15 (BCR 4) Climate warming impacts on persistence of Gray Jays in Alaska ................................. 16 (BCR 4) Creamer’s Field Migration Station, Fairbanks, Alaska, 2017 update ............................ 16 (BCR 4) Critical Connections Program: migratory birds in Alaska‘s National Parks ................. 18

Gyrfalcons in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, 2017 ........................................... 19 (BCR 4) Road-system grouse and ptarmigan spring breeding surveys, Alaska, 2017 ................. 20

the northwestern boreal forest................................................................................................. 21

interior Alaska, 2017 Update .................................................................................................. 22

Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................................... 22 (BCR 4, 5) Olive-sided Flycatcher migration and breeding biology ............................................ 23 (BCR 5) Juneau Tree Swallow Nest Watch, 2017 update ............................................................ 25

2017 update............................................................................................................................. 25 (BCR 5) Prince William Sound Zone, Chugach National Forest, 2017 update ........................... 26 (BCR 5) Sitka winter bird observation project, 2017 update ........................................................ 27 (BCR 5) Tongass Hummingbird Project, 2017 Update ................................................................ 27 (BCR 5) Tongass National Forest, 2017 landbird update ............................................................. 29

multi-stressor landscape .......................................................................................................... 30 (BCR 6, 7) Landbird Monitoring in the Northwest Territories .................................................... 31 (Alaska-wide) Adaptation to the Arctic: community genomics of Alaskan galliforms ............... 33 (Alaska-wide) North American Breeding Bird Survey, Alaska ................................................... 33 (Alaska-wide) Hunter harvested grouse and ptarmigan wing collection program, Alaska, 2017

update………………………………………………………………………………………...40

2

 

 

 

 

(Alaska-wide) Investigation of a novel virus associated with beak deformities in Alaskan birds 40 (Range-wide) A full-annual cycle model to understand factors limiting Rusty Blackbird

populations.............................................................................................................................. 41 (Boreal North America) Update from the Boreal Avian Modelling Project ................................ 42 Appendix. Landbird publications (2016–early 2018) relevant to Alaska and adjacent

Canada……………………………………………………………………………………... 46

3

COMPILER’S NOTE

This past year marked the 26th anniversary of Boreal Partners in Flight, which was founded in November 1991 by a small group of ornithologists during the Fourth Alaska Bird Conference (Handel 2000). This annual summary showcases how much the group has grown through a rich diversity of ongoing inventory, monitoring, research, and outreach programs, and recent publications by a highly skilled and dedicated membership across Alaska and northwestern Canada. I have compiled the voluntary contributions of many members and sincerely thank each contributor for their help. This report includes many projects that have been ongoing for decades, such biodiversity monitoring in the Yukon, raptor monitoring in Denali National Park and Preserve, statewide monitoring by the Breeding Bird Survey, and songbird migration monitoring in Fairbanks, among others. These studies are providing considerable insight into the ecology and conservation of landbird species and the ecosystems in which they are integral parts. Also noteworthy are the many studies that pool the efforts of several members, often in partnerships with scientists outside of Alaska and Canada, to understand the conservation needs of species of concern throughout the year, such as Golden Eagles, Olive-sided Flycatchers, Tree Swallows, and Rusty Blackbirds. There are also a number of programs that impressively integrated their scientific endeavors with outreach programs that engaged the public through education programs and bird festivals. I thank all of the members of Boreal Partners in Flight for their continued commitment to understand and conserve landbird populations across northwestern North America. My best wishes to you in all of your landbird pursuits in 2018 and the years to come.

Sincerely,

Steve Matsuoka, Co-chair of Boreal Partners in Flight

Literature cited Handel, C. M. 2000. Boreal partners in flight: working together to build a regional research and monitoring

program. Pages 143-150 in R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, L. Niles (eds.), Strategies for bird conservation: the Partners in Flight planning process. Proceedings: 1995 Partners in Flight International Workshop, 1-5 October, 1995 Cape May, NJ, USA.

Individual project reports were merged and lightly edited by the compiler. For more information about each study, please contact the individual authors. For more information about Boreal Partners in Flight, see http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/index.php For more information about Partners in Flight in the Americas see http://www.partnersinflight.org/about/ To be added to the e-mailing list for BPIF contact the BPIF Chair, borealpif@gmail.com.

4

2018 PROJECT SUMMARIES BY BIRD CONSERVATION REGION (BCR)

(BCR 2) ARTHROPODS AND PASSERINE DIET: EFFECTS OF SHRUB EXPANSION IN WESTERN ALASKA

Molly McDermott1,2, Patricia Doak1, Colleen Handel2, Greg A. Breed1, Christa P.H. Mulder1

1Institute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks; 2U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center

Across the Arctic, taller woody shrubs, particularly willow (Salix spp.), birch (Betula spp.), and alder (Alnus spp.), have been expanding rapidly onto tundra. Changes in vegetation structure can alter the physical habitat structure, thermal environment, and food available to arthropods, which play an important role in the structure and functioning of Arctic ecosystems. Not only do they provide key ecosystem services such as pollination and nutrient cycling, they are an essential food source for migratory birds. In this study I examined the relationships between the abundance, diversity, and community composition of arthropods and the height and cover of several shrub species across a tundra– shrub gradient in northwestern Alaska. To characterize nestling diet of common passerines that occupy this gradient, I used next-generation sequencing of fecal matter. Willow cover was strongly and consistently associated with abundance and biomass of arthropods and significant shifts in arthropod community composition and diversity. Key nestling prey items were positively associated with both willow and ericaceous shrubs. Diet composition varied significantly among bird species and spatially within species, however, I found that temporal variability in prey abundance did not have a strong relationship to the probability of consumption. I predict that the wide temporal window of prey availability and high diet diversity may protect these birds against negative impacts from climate-driven shifts in prey phenology and abundance. Taken together, my results suggest that shrub expansion could result in a significant shift in Arctic food-web structure and an increase in food availability for insectivores, although future ecosystem change in the Arctic is likely to be heterogenous as shrub types are expanding at different rates and in different places across the Arctic.

Contact. Molly McDermott, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, 1900 Pleasant Street, 334 UCB, Boulder, Colorado, 80305. E-mail: molly.mcdermott@colorado.edu

(BCR 2) DEMOGRAPHIC MECHANISMS OF AVIAN RANGE EXPANSIONS AND CONTRACTIONS ALONG

THE BOREAL-ARCTIC TRANSITIONS ZONE

Steve Matsuoka, Colleen Handel, Rachel Richardson, and Molly McDermott, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center

Arctic and subarctic ecosystems in Alaska are diversifying as the growing season increases in length and tall woody plants invade landscapes previously dominated by low-lying arctic and alpine tundra vegetation. As this shift occurs, much of the initial diversification in terrestrial vertebrates is from boreal forest passerines that are expanding their range margins northwards and higher in elevation (Mizel et al. 2016), with the invading songbirds potentially supplanting tundra-nesting species, particularly shorebirds, along their southern range boundaries (Thompson et al. 2016). We examined the nesting ecology of songbirds and shorebird breeding along tundra-shrub ecotones in upland areas on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska from 2015–2017 to understand the mechanisms driving avian colonization and extirpation as shrubs expand into the Arctic. More specifically we examined patterns in fecundity and nestling growth relative to timing of breeding, weather, habitat, and availability of arthropod prey to gain insight into how Arctic changes in weather and increases in shrubs are altering the timing of reproduction, availability of

5

preferred nest sites and prey for birds, nest exposure to predators, and competition for resources among species. We are currently compiling and analyzing data collected at over 800 nests of 31 species. Our preliminary results show that apparent nest success is exceptionally high across species (Table 1). This suggests that low rates of nest predation may facilitate range expansions by shrub-nesting songbirds but does not clarify mechanisms of range contractions for obligate tundra-nesting species.

Table 1. Numbers of nests monitored by species and year, Seward Peninsula, Alaska 2015–2017. The proportion of nests with at least one young successfully leaving the nest (S) was calculated as the ratio of successful to total nests across the three years combined. Nest numbers were lower for many species in 2017 because we searched half the number of plots searched in the previous 2 years.

Species 2015 2016 2017 Total S American Golden Plover 5 4 8 17 0.76 American Pipet 1 2 1 4 1.00 American Robin 6 11 6 23 0.61 American Tree Sparrow 14 14 2 30 0.87 Arctic Warbler 1 6 1 8 0.88 Blackpoll Warbler 0 0 1 1 1.00 Bluethroat 3 7 6 16 0.88 Common/Hoary Redpoll 54 13 30 97 0.57 Fox Sparrow 6 8 8 22 0.77 Golden-crowned Sparrow 49 41 16 106 0.76 Gray-cheeked Thrush 27 20 37 84 0.70 Lapland Longspur 44 41 33 118 0.75 Least Sandpiper 0 4 7 11 1.00 Long-tailed Jaeger 0 1 1 2 0.50 Northern Pintail 0 1 1 2 0.50 Northern Waterthrush 1 1 1 3 1.00 Northern Wheatear 0 0 2 2 1.00 Orange-crowned Warbler 12 9 5 26 0.73 Red-breasted Merganser 0 1 0 1 1.00 Savannah Sparrow 28 16 9 53 0.87 Semipalmated Plover 0 0 1 1 1.00 Short-eared Owl 0 3 0 3 0.67 Western Sandpiper 4 15 2 21 0.76 Whimbrel 2 5 0 7 0.71 White Wagtail 0 0 1 1 0.00 White-crowned Sparrow 5 0 1 6 0.83 Willow Ptarmigan 0 1 0 1 0.00 Wilson's Snipe 4 9 3 16 0.69 Wilson's Warbler 6 8 4 18 0.89 Yellow Warbler 24 17 14 55 0.95

Contact. Steve Matsuoka, USGS Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, E-mail: smatsuoka@usgs.gov

Literature Cited Thompson, S. J., C. M. Handel, R. M. Richardson, and L. B. McNew. 2016. When winners become losers: Predicted

nonlinear responses of arctic birds to increasing woody vegetation. PLoS One 11(11):e0164755. Mizel, J. D., J. H. Schmidt, C. L. Mcintyre, and C. A. Roland. 2016. Rapidly shifting elevational distributions of

passerine species parallel vegetation change in the subarctic. Ecosphere 7(3):e01264.

(BCR 2) LANDBIRD MONITORING ON KODIAK ISLAND, ALASKA, 2017

6

Robin Corcoran1, Cindy Trussell2, and Rich MacIntosh3

1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2Kodiak College, 3Biological Consultant

Breeding Bird Survey. Two road-system surveys (Kodiak II (231) and Chiniak (131)) were conducted in June 2017 by Cindy Trussell and Rich MacIntosh.

Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey. One ALMS plot located on Uganik Island, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (block no. 14902), was surveyed on 06/15/2017 by Cindy Trussell.

Christmas Bird Count. Two counts were conducted, the Kodiak count circle (12/16/2017) and the Narrow Cape/Kalsin Bay count circle (12/30/2017). Counts were organized and data compiled by Rich MacIntosh.

Kodiak Refuge Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship Program (MAPS) Program.The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship Program (MAPS) Program was established in 1989 to monitor spatial and temporal patterns in adult survival rates and productivity for populations of landbirds across North America. Over 1,000 MAPS stations have been established and operated, a large proportion of them providing many consecutive years of data. The MAPS program currently consists of nearly 500 monitoring stations sampled annually and the program provides estimates of adult apparent survival and recruitment rates and indices of productivity for about 150 landbird species (DeSante et al. 1995, 2004, 2007).

From 2010-2017, we annually operated a MAPS site at the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters on the Buskin River State Recreation Area along the Kodiak road system in Alaska. Following MAPS program guidelines, the station consisted of 10 mist nets distributed over a roughly eight-hectare (20 acre) area. Nets were operated one day during each of six consecutive 10-day periods between 10 June and 8 August. Nets were opened at official local sunrise and were left open exactly six hours. Habitat at the site was primarily mixed alder-willow riparian with some Sitka spruce upland. In eight years of mist net operation, we captured and banded 1814 birds representing 21 species, and recaptured between years 110 individuals representing 11 species (Table 1). The most commonly caught species were Fox Sparrow, Hermit Thrush, Pacific Wrens, and Wilson’s and Yellow Warblers. In general, across all seasons, non-migratory and short to medium distance migrants had higher productivity compared to long-distance migrant warblers.

One of the primary goals of the Kodiak MAPS project was communicating science and conservation to the public through bird banding. The core team of trained volunteers consisted of six to eight people, depending on the year, and often included seasonal staff and volunteers with the Kodiak Refuge Biological Program and Visitor’s Center. We had approximately 30 volunteers each season and 120 participants across the eight years. A cumulative total of approximately 2400 hours of service was donated to the refuge by volunteer participation in the MAPS program.

Contact. Robin Corcoran, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak Refuge, 1390 Buskin River Road, Kodiak, AK, 99615. E-mail: robin_corcoran@fws.gov

Table 1. Summary of mist net captures of birds on the Kodiak Refuge Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) site on the Buskin River State Recreation Area, Alaska, in summer 2010 to 2017.

7

 

   

   

 

Year* No.

Recaptured Between

Years

Mean Hatch

Year to Adult Ratio

Species 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

Fox Sparrow 46 44 33 48 58 80 80 56 445 28 2.2

Hermit Thrush 52 41 47 30 43 42 41 21 317 27 2.0

Wilson’s Warbler 76 26 29 16 29 42 19 30 267 18 0.3

Pacific Wren 16 24 0 1 21 59 62 12 195 8 1.2

Yellow Warbler 29 15 26 23 8 13 11 13 138 14 0.2

Golden-crowned Kinglet 3 27 0 0 4 63 5 8 110 1.8

Black-capped Chickadee 13 5 5 10 7 17 7 2 66 6 2.2

Pine Siskin 1 12 3 12 0 30 2 2 62

Varied Thrush 3 12 9 12 2 5 5 4 52 2 1.0

Pine Grosbeak 1 5 4 10 2 4 2 2 30 3

Orange-crowned Warbler 7 3 2 2 4 0 2 8 28

Common Redpoll 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 10 25

Brown Creeper 0 0 1 4 2 12 0 0 19 2

Red-breasted Nuthatch 2 2 2 7 1 5 0 0 19 1

Golden-crowned Sparrow 6 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 10

Downy Woodpecker 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 9

Red Crossbill 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 8

Myrtle Warbler 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 7

Song Sparrow 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4

Three-toed Woodpecker 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1

Northern Goshawk 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

TOTALS 259 217 164 180 186 395 240 173 1814 110

Total Net Hours 371 341 358 357 347 355 361 358

*Yearly totals are for newly banded birds only; within- and between-season recaptures are not included.

(BCR 2, 4) ALASKA SWALLOW MONITORING NETWORK

Tricia Blake1, Melissa Cady2, Audrey Taylor3, April Harding Scurr1, Alex Rose4, and Kristine Sowl5

1Alaska Songbird Institute; 2Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge; 3Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, UAA; 4University of Colorado Boulder Museum of Natural History; 5Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Overview. The Alaska Swallow Monitoring Network is a multi-entity effort to collect ecological data on climate-change impacts to Tree Swallows using artificial nest box colonies throughout Alaska. Although the network is centered around ecological research, the network also integrates a citizen science-based component at most sites, with data being collected, interpreted, and shared by students, teachers, researchers, and community members. A major benefit of the network is that all sites collect ecological data using the same field methods, allowing direct comparison of Tree Swallow breeding phenology, nest success, and banded bird return rates across sites across the state. The summer of 2017 was the second season of data collection using the full network approach. Participating sites included Fairbanks

8

(Creamer’s Field and UAF), Fort Wainwright, Anchorage, McCarthy, Alaska Peninsula, Bethel, Ruby, and Ester.

Monitoring. Network partners monitored 422 nest boxes, 248 of which were active in 2017 (see Table 1 for season summary).

Table 1. 2017 Summary of Tree Swallow nesting ecology in artificial nest boxes for selected sites in the Alaska Swallow Monitoring Network.

Fairbanks Anchorage Alaska Peninsula Bethel

# Monitored Nest Boxes 150 146 61 32

# Active Boxes 78 86 52 21

Occupancy Rate1 0.52 0.59 0.85 0.66

Mean Julian Lay Date 144 147 150 149

Mean Julian Hatch date 164 167 169 167

Mean Julian Fledge Date 183 - 190 189

Total # Eggs Laid 452 513 318 130

# Eggs Hatched 370 303 274 111

# Adults Banded New 62 69 48 41

# Adults Returns2 58 37 49 0

# Nestlings Banded 345 33 225 80

# of Nests that Fledged3 68 63 49 19 1Occupancy rate: the # of boxes occupied/# of available nest boxes 2Birds banded in a previous year, returned in 20173Fledged: fledged at least one nestling

Education and outreach. Network partners offered five internships; trained 74 volunteers who contributed 1,813 hours; and offered 40 public programs serving at least 1,517 people. Many thousands more Alaskans were reached via informal presentations, signage on trails, homes, and nest boxes, and social media, where network posts received 19,670 views.

Contact. Tricia Blake, Alaska Songbird Institute, P.O. Box 80235, Fairbanks, AK 99708. Phone: (907)888-2121; E-mail: Tricia.Blake@aksongbird.org

(BCR 3) POTENTIAL CLIMATE-MEDIATED IMPACTS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE OUTPUT OF LANDBIRDS

AT THE COLVILLE RIVER, ALASKA

Dan Ruthrauff and Vijay Patil, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center

2017 marked the sixth year of monitoring the reproductive output of landbirds at the Colville River Delta (70.437°N, 150.677°W) under the Alaska Science Center’s Changing Arctic Ecosystems initiative. Our primary focus at this field site is to monitor the seasonal timing and outcome of reproductive events of the nine most-common species of shorebirds at the site. Lapland Longspurs also breed in high numbers at our study site, and since 2015 we have incorporated dedicated study of breeding longspurs into our project to compare potential climate-mediated impacts on chick growth across the precocial-altricial spectrum of chick growth strategies. We measure the seasonal abundance of arthropod prey resources every three days using modified malaise traps, and in 2017 collected fecal samples from nestling longspurs to broadly

9

characterize chick diets using genetic techniques. We measured the growth rates of 59 longspur chicks from 12 nests in 2015, 98 chicks from 25 nests in 2016, and 72 chicks from 16 nests in 2017, and will compare these growth rates to those collected over the same study period from the chicks of Semipalmated Sandpipers. We measured Lapland Longspur chicks as early as possible after hatching, and every three days thereafter until fledging. Although we have not yet conducted formal analyses of longspur growth rates, we did not observe any instances of apparent chick starvation over the three years of our study. In contrast, we frequently encountered emaciated and apparently starved shorebird chicks in 2016 during an early July cold snap, perhaps indicating that adult longspurs are able to buffer their chicks during periods of food shortage in ways that precocial landbirds cannot.

Contact. Dan Ruthrauff, USGS Alaska Science Center, E-mail: druthrauff@usgs.gov

(BCR 3, 4) MONITORING LANDBIRDS IN THE NPS ARCTIC AND CENTRAL ALASKA INVENTORY AND

MONITORING NETWORKS

Jeremy Mizel1, Laura Phillips2, Carol McIntyre2, Jared Hughey1, Emily Williams1, and Joshua Schmidt3

1National Park Service, Arctic Inventory and Monitoring Network, 2Denali National Park and Preserve, 3National Park Service, Central Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network

In 2017, the National Park Service’s Inventory and Monitoring program continued to conduct on- and off-road surveys in Arctic and Central Alaska network parks. We conducted repeat surveys (3 min in duration) at point count stations located along the Denali Park (n = 150), the McCarthy (n = 100), and Nabesna roads (n = 50). Points were each surveyed 2 to 5 times between 24 April and 27 June. The five most abundant species along the Denali Park Road were White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea), Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca), Orange-crowned Warbler (Oreothlypis celata), and Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis).

Off-road surveys were conducted in Denali National Park and along the upper Kelly River in Noatak National Preserve. Surveys involved conducting repeat surveys along fixed routes (averaging 5.4 km in length) and recording the encounter locations of individuals using waypoint, distance, and bearing information. At the Noatak NP off-road site, we surveyed each of 12 routes 3-6 times and detected a total of 6,231 singing birds. The five most abundant species were American Tree Sparrow, White-crowned Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), and Wilson’s Warbler (Cardellina pusilla). In Denali, we surveyed each of 8 routes 4-5 times and detected a total of 1,698 singing birds. The five most abundant species were Savannah Sparrow, White-crowned Sparrow, American Tree Sparrow, Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris), and Fox Sparrow. Details about our sampling methods can be found in Schmidt et al. (2013).

Contact. Jeremy Mizel; Phone (907)455-0638; Email: jeremy_mizel@nps.gov; Laura Phillips; Phone (907)683-6352; Email: laura_phillips@nps.gov.

Literature cited Mizel, J. D., J. H. Schmidt, and M. S. Lindberg (in press). Accommodating temporary emigration in spatial distance

sampling models. Journal of Applied Ecology. Schmidt, J. H., C. L. McIntyre, and M. C. MacCluskie. 2013. Accounting for incomplete detection: What are we

estimating and how might it affect long-term passerine monitoring programs. Biological Conservation 160:130– 139.

10

 

 

                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                 

 (BCR 4) BIODIVERSITY PROJECT, YUKON RESEARCH CENTER, YUKON TERRITORY: SUMMARY OF

LANDBIRD RESEARCH, 2017 UPDATE

Dave Mossop, Yukon College

Overview. These seven projects mostly use bird species diversity and population performance as indicators of ecosystem health. In part using student energies, data bases are maintained tracking key demographic parameters of important focal species. Some of these studies we now have well over 40 years of data, 2017 was the 20th year that this initiative has been based at Yukon College. In part the vision has been to contribute toward Yukon’s commitment under the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (1993), and to foster partnership between the Yukon Research Center at Yukon College and the various management authorities for wildlife in the Yukon.

Willow Ptarmigan annual survey: Ogilvie Mountains, Coast Range, and North Slope. Two of 5 long-term study plots were searched for territorial pairs: the Chilkat pass plot on the Haines Hwy at the 60th parallel and the North Fork Pass plot on the Dempster Highway at 65 parallel north. This was the 60th year of annual population monitoring by this effort. Interestingly, numbers have continued to fluctuate erratically since 2010–2011. This unexpected result is an obvious disruption of the 10 year cycle and is well documented in the earlier survey. The reasons for this potentially troubling finding will form the basis for future analysis. If this apparent change in the 10 year periodicity of this species’ population persists, then it may be signaling one of the most serious disruptions to the Yukon’s ecology. Reporting will be greatly enhanced with formation in the current year of a new circumpolar group with the objective of feeding into the CAFF monitoring process.

Tree Swallow and Mountain Bluebird at the Yukon Wildlife Preserve, Whitehorse. This project was an initiative to establish a ‘citizen science’ suite of data bases that would track the progress of various indicator species at the Yukon Wildlife Preserve near Whitehorse. College students Kawina Robichaud, and Chandelle King have used Northern Research Institute grants to do most of the field work and used the work for credit in directed studies courses at the college.

The monitoring of cavity nesting birds at the preserve has developed as the most valuable over time. The data set is being maintained at YRC. The apparent decline in bluebird occupancy is significant. Tree

60

50

PERCENT BOXES OCCUPIED by Mountain Bluebirds and Tree Swallows, YUKON TERRITORY

TRSW

40

30

20

10

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PER

CEN

T

11

swallow occupancy has fluctuated widely. Observations of an alarming number of dead adults in boxes are probably a result of unusual swings in spring temperatures. This is being monitored as a possible consequence of climate change in the north.

Bird strike potential at a planned wind turbine site, Burwash, Yukon. This study, an initiative of the Kluane First Nation, is designed to track the movements of migrating birds along the shoreline of Kluane Lake where a series of wind turbines are planned. A data-gathering meteorological tower is at the site. Direct observations are being made of bird movements, counts of birds generally using the area are made and searches for evidence of birds hitting structures are conducted. A large movement (up to 300 per hour) of migrating birds both fall and spring was documented. Their apparent preferred route transiting the site has been identified. Adjustments to the planning of the site are underway. A companion study of the bird population effects at a hydro energy site was initiated. The Aishihik hydro site has been in operation for over two decades; its ‘external’ costs to the local ecology can make an important comparison with alternate forms of energy production.

Breeding Bird Survey, Eagle Plains, Dempster Highway. Two standard breeding bird surveys were carried out along the Dempster Highway in the Blackstone and Eagle River/Arctic Circle areas. All data were collated and submitted to the National Breeding Bird Survey, Ottawa.

Gyrfalcon/tundra ecosystem monitoring, Yukon wide.This project is part of a network of circumpolar gyrfalcon researchers tracking of the ecological status of tundra habitats. A group of over 20 researchers cooperate. This work recognizes willow ptarmigan as a keystone tundra species and gyrfalcon as a top predator in the system. Historically, gyrfalcon productivity in the Coast Range was high from1999 through 2007; in 2008 a significant drop was noted. This accompanied a growing and troubling indication that the adult breeding population may be declining in correlation with ptarmigan population anomalies (above). In 2012 and 2013 productivity was basically zero. In 2014-2016 productivity improved somewhat to almost 40% of nest sites checked. Unfortunately in 2017 this survey was only carried out in part due to budget cuts by the Yukon government. The future of this valuable data set will depend on developing sable funding.

Coast Range Gyrfalcon survey

100% Sites occupied

80%

60% Sites producing young

40%

20%

0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Peregrine falcon productivity study, Yukon Wide. Key reporting for the national peregrine falcon survey occurs every 5 years. Troubling, just under 70% of known pairs visited were producing no young. In the current year we surveyed a lower section of the Stewart River that hadn’t been surveyed in the last many decades plus a resurvey of a mid-section of the Yukon River population. In the smaller sample from 2016, production was less than 10%. In the current year half of the survey was new habitat: 6 new breeding pairs were recorded. 22 previously-known sites were visited. Of these, 11 (50%) were occupied by adults but only 6 (27%) were producing young.

12

 

             

 

 

 

 

                                           

0100.0

Percent of peregrine nest sites producing young

0.00

Breeding status of American Kestrel, Yukon wide. Breeding numbers of American Kestrel collapsed alarmingly across the Yukon in the last decade. This project uses artificial cavities to track the status of the species. The work is part of a larger partnership effort examining the status of American Kestrels across North America. Boreal Owls and other larger cavity nesters like Bufflehead ducks are also involved with an overall objective of understanding these species’ interrelationships with ‘true old growth’ trees. In the current year we re-checked 100 nest boxes for use, 74 were ‘acceptable’. Kestrel numbers dropped again to only 4 breeding pairs (zero in 2007, one pair in 2013 and 6 pairs last year). This occupancy hovers at about a 90% decline from the early 1990’s.

70.0

60.0

PERCENT BOXES OCCUPIED BY AM. KESTRELS YUKON TERRITORY, CANADA

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Contact. Dave Mossop, Yukon College, Box 2799 Whitehorse, YT Y1A 4H5, mossop@yukoncollege.yk.ca

13

(BCR 4) BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS AND RESEARCH EFFORTS ON JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, ALASKA, 2017 UPDATE

Laura McDuffy and Jim Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management

Boreal wetland species are among North America’s most rapidly declining avifauna. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) provides vital breeding habitat for such species of high conservation concern, including: Lesser Yellowlegs, Solitary Sandpiper, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Blackpoll Warbler, and Rusty Blackbird. It’s estimated that these five species have declined by ~60-90% since the 1970s. During 2017, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Department of Defense (DoD), University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and USGS-Alaska Science Center continued a collaborative effort to fill knowledge gaps of high conservation species on JBER. The primary objectives include (1) conduct breeding bird surveys of boreal wetlands to determine relative abundance, distribution, and habitat associations; (2) individually mark and resight species of high conservation concern to estimate annual adult survival; and (3) deploy tracking devices and collect genetic samples to identify migratory routes and important stopover and wintering sites used by Rusty Blackbirds.

During 2017, we conducted surveys during two periods of peak detectability: 15–20 May for waterbirds (e.g., loons, grebes, waterfowl, and shorebirds), year-round residents, and Nearctic passerine migrants, and 29 May–2 June for Neotropical passerine migrants. In total, observers surveyed 78 plots and detected 89 species comprising 11,010 individuals.

Table 1. Summary of passerine species of high conservation concern detected within plots during two survey periods on JBER.

Survey 1 (15-20 May) Survey 2 (29 May-2 June)

Species # Individuals # Pairs % Plots # Individuals # Pairs % Plots

Olive-sided Flycatcher 13 5 16.7 24 11 17.9

Blackpoll Warbler 0 0 0 20 11 15.4

Rusty Blackbird 27 10 12.8 14 7 10.3

Since 2013, USFWS has supported ADFG’s efforts to study the breeding ecology and migratory movements of Olive-sided Flycatchers on JBER. In 2017, the final year of this study, we retrieved one PinPoint GPS tag from a breeding adult, but did not deploy tags on, or band any additional birds.

In 2007, ADFG, USFWS, USGS, and DoD began a comprehensive study to better understand the breeding ecology and migratory movements of Rusty Blackbirds on JBER. Ten years later, the objectives have shifted to the development of a genoscape model to determine the migratory connectivity of genetically discrete populations, as well as to investigate the effects of methyl-mercury loading on genotypic expression. To begin the development of a genoscape map, biological samples including blood, feathers and feces were collected from all captured individuals in 2017. In the lab, DNA can be sequenced to identify unique loci that differentiate populations across the breeding range of Alaska and northern Canada. These genetic markers can then be used to link biological samples collected on wintering grounds to breeding populations. In addition, we attached four PinPoint tags to male Rusty Blackbirds to better inform us of migratory pathways used by breeding individuals.

In addition to the other studies conducted in 2017, USFWS in collaboration with DoD, began a pilot study to examine site fidelity of banded adult Blackpoll Warblers and determine if this species would be a good candidate for a migratory tracking study. USFWS captured and banded 19 male warblers using

14

audio lures within each individual’s breeding territory. All birds were banded with a combination of three color bands for unique identification in the field.

Contact. Laura McDuffie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 201, Anchorage, AK 99503. Phone: (907)786-3979, Email: laura_mcduffie@fws.gov

(BCR 4) CAVITY AND TREE PREFERENCES OF WINTER ROOSTING BIRDS AND RESTING MAMMALS IN

SOUTHERN YUKON

Jesse Vigliotti1,2, Kathryn Aitken1,2, Thomas Jung3, Fiona Schmiegelow1,2

1School of Science, Yukon College; 2Dept. of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta; 3Yukon Environment

Many studies have investigated the tree and nest preferences of cavity-using avian and mammalian species for breeding, but relatively few studies have examined winter tree-cavity use. Furthermore, most published research on winter cavity use has focused on species and populations within southern and sub-boreal forest regions. Currently, no known research has investigated the potential cavity, tree or habitat preferences of over-wintering, northern boreal species that use tree-cavities as a strategy for coping with extreme cold. In southern Yukon Territory, Canada, 14 resident species (10 avian and 4 mammalian) are known to depend on tree cavities, at least during periods of extreme weather. These species include: boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonica), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla), mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), American marten (Martes americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) and northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus). The purpose of this research is to examine which tree and cavity characteristics are preferred for roosting and resting by over-wintering bird and mammal species in southern Yukon. This research will provide data that can be used in the conservation and management of cavity-using birds and mammals in northern boreal forest communities. Furthermore, by identifying the cavity and tree preferences of winter cavity users, this study can help guide forest use and management practices such as salvage logging of burned and beetle-killed stands, firewood cutting and FireSmart, in Canada’s northern forests, and can help ensure that cavity-trees with preferred characteristics are retained on the landscape.

Four study areas have been established throughout southern Yukon, each containing three 40-hectare treatment plots that represent the forest types within each area. These study areas are located near the communities of Haines Junction, Mendenhall, and Whitehorse. Tree-cavities within each plot will be surveyed during the day and night, throughout the winter months, using the combination of a thermal sensor and an endoscopic camera (a lit camera attached to a telescopic pole, and connected to a monitor). The thermal sensor will detect cavity occupation and, if a cavity is in use, the camera will be used to identify the species and number of individuals in a cavity. Cavity-use surveys will be conducted during daylight hours to detect roosting/resting nocturnal species (i.e. boreal owls and northern flying squirrels) and during the night to detect diurnal species (i.e. woodpeckers, chickadees, nuthatches, red squirrels, and marten). To identify the resource preferences of over-wintering birds and mammals, cavity and tree characteristics for each site used on a given day/night will be compared to the characteristics of those not being used. Information on habitat type and structure will also be collected to determine whether broader habitat characteristics affect cavity selection.

Contact. Dr. Kathryn Aitken, School of Science, Yukon College, 500 College Drive, P.O. Box 2799, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada, Y1A 5K4. E-mail: kaitken@yukoncollege.yk.ca

15

(BCR 4) CLIMATE WARMING IMPACTS ON PERSISTENCE OF GRAY JAYS IN ALASKA

Laura Phillips1, Emily Williams1, Ryan Norris2, John Marzluff3 and Carol McIntyre1

1Denali National Park and Preserve, 2University of Guelph, 3University of Washington

Many resident birds that inhabit harsh climes at northern latitudes survive by caching food items that they rely on throughout the winter, when food is scarce. With warming temperatures, some resident birds are vulnerable to declines due to potential spoilage of winter food caches. Gray Jays are a common and conspicuous bird of the boreal forest that relies on perishable food items stored in the fall to survive the winter and lay eggs in early spring. Growing evidence from research in Canada suggests that Gray Jay populations may be declining due to climate change-induced reduction in overall food availability, which reduces occupancy and productivity. In response to the Denali National Park and Preserve’s Resource Stewardship Strategy, we initiated the Gray Jay Ecology project to fill critical gaps in knowledge about the year-round requirements of common resident birds of Alaska, and to understand how these species may respond to global climate change. The primary program objectives are to: (1) develop a thorough understanding of the year-round requirements of Gray Jays; (2) use data collected on the movements, foraging ecology, and productivity of Gray Jays to identify effects of warming temperatures on reproductive success and annual survival, and (3) engage the public by using volunteer citizen scientists to study Gray Jay behavior in accessible areas in and around park lands. In 2016–2017, we color-banded 126 Gray Jays (n = 80 adults and first years, 46 nestlings) and found 29 nests in 23 territories. Apparent nest success was 55% (n = 22). In 2018, we plan to begin projects investigating how diet and caching and foraging behavior influence breeding behavior and nest success.

Contact. Laura Phillips, NPS, Phone (907) 683-6352; Email: laura_phillips@nps.gov

(BCR 4) CREAMER’S FIELD MIGRATION STATION, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA, 2017 UPDATE

April Harding Scurr and Tricia Blake, Alaska Songbird Institute

Overview. The Creamer’s Field Migration Station is a long-term avian migration station that was established in 1992 on Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. The objectives are to study changes in migratory songbird ecology and provide opportunities for hands-on science education. The Creamer’s Field Migration Station is open to the public during operational hours. We encourage people to see scientific methods in action, see a bird in-the-hand and ask questions. Educational components of this project consist of: 1) scheduled school field trips for approximately 2,000 kindergarten through university students each year, where students learn about migratory ecology, research methods and bird conservation; 2) opportunities for supervised volunteers to collect and record data and help with daily operation of the project; 3) research and education internships and bird banding apprenticeships; and 4) availability of data for publications and student projects.

Research. In 2017 operated 6-m and 12-m, 30-mm mist nets, weekdays from April 17–May 19 (n = 22 nets), and daily August 1–September 30 (n = 30 nets), weather permitting. Capture information can be found in Table 1.

Education/outreach. This year’s education and outreach efforts at the Creamer’s Field Migration Station directly served at least 2,059 people. Many more were reached through public outreach including a large

16

display at the Noel Wien Library (Fairbanks) during migration, media articles, and public service announcements. Direct programs included: 81 K-12 classes (2,123 students, teachers, and parent chaperones) from the Fairbanks North Star

Borough and Delta/Greely School Districts. 39 community volunteers of all ages who together contributed 2,001 ours collecting data, banding

birds, working on station maintenance and assisting with education programs. 8 guided walks to the station during fall migration. 2 large community events: an open house during the Spring Migration Celebration on Creamer’s

Refuge (this is the refuge-wide celebration of International Migratory Bird Day); and a Bird Banding Breakfast in August

3 bird banding/education internships.

Table 1. Spring and Fall Captures of Birds at Creamer's Field Migration Station in 2017

Newly Banded1

After Hatch Species Hatch Year2 Year3 SubTotal4 Returns5 Total6

Alder Flycatcher 1

American Robin 103

American Three-toed Woodpecker 2

American Tree Sparrow 38

Belted Kingfisher 1

Black-capped Chickadee

Black-backed Woodpecker 0

27

Blackpoll Warbler 32

Bohemian Waxwing 0

Boreal Chickadee 3

Common Redpoll 3

Fox Sparrow

Downy Woodpecker 1

25

Gray-cheeked Thrush 51

Gray Jay 0

Hairy Woodpecker

Gambel's White-crowned Sparrow 11

0

Hammond's Flycatcher 9

Hermit Thrush 9

Lincoln Sparrow

Hoary Redpoll 0

133

Merlin 1

Myrtle Warbler 251

Northern Waterthrush 74

Norther Shrike 2

Orange-crowned Warbler 160

Red-breasted Nuthatch 0

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 22

Rusty Blackbird 9

2 3 3 6

20 123 3 126

2 4 0 4

10 48 0 48

0 1 0 1

1 1 0 1

4 31 6 37

3 35 0 35

1 1 0 1

2 5 0 5

118 121 0 121

6 7 0 7

4 29 0 29

9 60 0 60

1 1 0 1

10 21 0 21

1 1 1 2

14 23 2 25

0 9 0 9

3 3 0 3

10 143 2 145

0 1 0 1

26 277 1 278

12 86 0 86

0 2 0 2

16 176 1 177

1 1 0 1

1 23 0 23

2 11 0 11

17

Newly Banded1

After Hatch Species Hatch Year2 Year3 SubTotal4 Returns5 Total6

Savannah Sparrow 21 1 22 0 22

Slate-colored Junco 92 39 131 3 134

0 1 1 0 1

1 2 3 1 4

Swainson's Thrush 215 24 239 2 241

Varied Thrush 4 0 4 0 4

Wilson's Snipe 0 1 1 0 1

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 1 0 1 0 1

Wilson's Warbler 33 2 35 0 35

Yellow Warbler 35 4 39 0 39

Total 1370 353 1723 25 1748

Solitary Sandpiper

Sharp-shinned Hawk

1New bands of first time captured birds only 2 Bird born during capture year 3Bird born in a previous calendar year 4Total=all new banded birds, including both Hatch Years and After Hatch Year birds 5 Birds banded in a previous calendar year and recaptured in 2017, only recorded once even if multiple recaptures occurred in 2017 6 Total of all new banded birds + Returns 7Returns/(Total of All Banded Birds+Returns) 8((After Hatch Years of Banded Birds + Returns)/(Total of all new banded birds+Returns))

Acknowledgments. Thank you to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for allowing us to conduct our research on Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, to our many volunteers for their hard work, and to all our Adopt-a-Net sponsors and ASI members for funding the project.

Contact. April Harding Scurr, Alaska Songbird Institute, PO Box 80235, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709. Phone: (907)888-2121; E-mail: April.HardingScurr@aksongbird.org.

(BCR 4) CRITICAL CONNECTIONS PROGRAM: MIGRATORY BIRDS IN ALASKA‘S NATIONAL PARKS

Carol McIntyre1, Laura Phillips1, Emily Williams1, Scott Weidensaul, and Iain Stenhouse2

1Denali National Park and Preserve, 2Biodiveristy Research Institute

Alaska’s National Parklands provide over 54 million acres of critical nesting habitat for an abundance and diversity of long-distance migratory birds that travel across boundaries and habitats throughout the year, including flights across continents and hemispheres. Nearly all the birds that nest in Alaska are international migrants that provide connections between our remote and wild Alaska parklands and the many visitors that travel here from around the world. The Critical Connections Program was initiated in 2014–2015 to provide essential information for conserving migratory species, by linking research results directly to conservation and education efforts. Our objectives are to: (1) develop a thorough understanding of the year-round movements of Alaska’s migratory birds; (2) use data collected on the breeding grounds, migration routes, and wintering areas to identify factors driving population trajectories; and (3) expand collaborative efforts to mitigate constraining factors and protect critical resources required by Alaska’s migratory birds. In 2015–2017, we deployed light-level geolocators on 16 Gray-cheeked Thrush, 19 Swainson’s Thrush, 13 Hermit Thrush, 25 Fox Sparrow, 15 Wilson’s Warbler, 20 Blackpoll

18

Warbler, and 27 Arctic Warblers in Denali National Park and Preserve. We have recovered a total of 33 geolocators from 6 Gray-cheeked Thrush, 7 Swainson’s Thrush, 3 Hermit Thrush, 6 Fox Sparrow, 2 Wilson’s Warbler, 6 Blackpoll Warbler, and 3 Arctic Warblers. Preliminary results indicate that Swainson’s Thrushes may winter in central South America. In 2018, we plan to continue ongoing analyses of geolocator data, as well as locate and recapture tagged individuals from 2015–2017. More details about the Critical Connections Program can be found in Phillips et al. (2015).

Contact. Laura Phillips, NPS, Phone (907) 683-6352; Email: laura_phillips@nps.gov

Literature cited Phillips, L. M., C. L. McIntyre, S. Weidensaul, and I. J. Stenhouse. 2015. Critical Connections Program for

migratory birds in Alaska: 2015 program activities. Natural Resource Report NPS/DENA/NRR—2015/1087. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. (https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2225150)

(BCR 4) MONITORING TERRITORY OCCUPANCY AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF GOLDEN EAGLES

AND GYRFALCONS IN DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA, 2017

Carol McIntyre, Denali National Park and Preserve

Golden Eagles are a vital sign of the NPS Central Alaska Monitoring Network. We have monitored territory occupancy and reproductive activities of Golden Eagles at over 80 nesting territories in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range in Denali annually since 1988 using two standardized aerial surveys supplemented by additional ground surveys. Please see McIntyre and Schmidt (2012) and Schmidt et al. (2018) for more information on survey methods and past results, and Steenhof et al. (2017) for details on terminology used in this study.

In 2017, we documented occupancy and reproductive success at 94 Golden Eagle territories in the Denali study area. We detected 91 occupied territories, including 74 containing a nest where eggs were laid and 55 where at least one nestling reached the minimum acceptable age for assessing nest success (51 d of age). We detected 84 fledglings, resulting in a mean brood size of 1.53 and 0.92 fledglings per occupied territory. Golden Eagle reproduction in 2017 was among the highest recorded over the 30 year study period and was correlated with an abundance of important prey species including willow ptarmigan, snowshoe hare, and Arctic ground squirrel. In 2017, we also continued to quantify: 1) age structure of the territorial population by documenting age class (adult or subadult) of territory holders, 2) interactions between territorial eagles and apparent conspecific intruders (non-territorial eagles who are actively seeking entry into the breeding population), 3) nest site fidelity and turnover rates, and 4) annual cycle movements (with FWS, USGS, and Conservation Science Global, Inc.). We are also collaborating with the FWS Western Golden Eagle Team to assess reproductive trends across western North America and broad-scale movement patterns of Golden Eagles across North America.

We also monitored 14 Gyrfalcon nesting territories in 2017 concurrently with the eagle monitoring work. We detected 12 occupied territories, including 10 with a successful nest. We detected 28 fledglings, resulting in a mean brood size of 2.80 and 2.33 fledglings per occupied territory. Gyrfalcon production in the Denali study area was among the highest recorded in the 30 year study and was correlated with an abundance of their important prey species including willow ptarmigan and Arctic ground squirrel. We are collaborating with the Arctic Falcon Specialist Group of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity group of the Arctic Council, to identify trends and status of Gyrfalcons across their circumpolar range.

We also noted that 2017 was a banner breeding season for several predatory species in the Denali study area including Northern Harrier, Long-tailed Jaeger, Great-horned Owl, Northern Hawk Owl, and Short-eared Owl, most likely due to a super-abundance of their important prey species including red-backed voles and other smaller mammals. Our monitoring studies will continue in 2018.

19

Contact. Carol McIntyre, National Park Service, 4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709. Email: Carol_McIntyre@nps.gov

Literature cited McIntyre, C. L., and J. H. Schmidt. 2012. Ecological and environmental correlates of territory occupancy and

breeding performance of migratory Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos in interior Alaska. Ibis 154:124-135. Schmidt, J. H., C. L. McIntyre, C. A. Roland, M. C. MacCluskie, and M. J. Flamme. 2018. Bottom-up processes

drive reproductive success in an apex predator. Ecology and Evolution 8:1833–1841. Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert, C. L. McIntyre and J. L. Brown. 2017. Coming to terms about describing golden eagle

reproduction. Journal of Raptor Research 51:378-390.

(BCR 4) ROAD-SYSTEM GROUSE AND PTARMIGAN SPRING BREEDING SURVEYS, ALASKA, 2017

Rick Merizon and Cameron Carroll, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Springtime breeding behavior of many tetraonids allows a means to index annual abundance and the cyclic nature of grouse and ptarmigan populations. In Alaska, male ruffed, sharp-tailed, and sooty grouse, as well as willow and rock ptarmigan perform conspicuous, springtime, territorial displays. Male spruce grouse and white-tailed ptarmigan also perform a springtime display, but it is one that is not easily located or viewed, making monitoring of population abundance through this behavior more challenging. These 2 species are monitored through wing collections, periodic site visits to areas where fall harvest occurs, and reports from ADF&G biologists, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts.

The spring breeding season for grouse and ptarmigan in Alaska occurs from late April through early June. Due to the geography of Alaska, limited road system, poor access off the road system in the spring, and staff limitations, the Small Game Program is restricted to species and areas in which population abundance can be assessed. Therefore, the program has focused on those populations that are either heavily exploited by hunters, within popular outdoor recreational areas, or very close to large urban centers or road-systems, and afford consistent and reliable access from year to year.

Survey methods utilized for ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse and willow and rock ptarmigan are consistent with state and national techniques. For ruffed grouse, roadside and trail transects were established in Anderson (1993), Delta Junction (2008), Palmer (1992), and Tok (2014) and have been completed annually since their inception. Sharp-tailed grouse lek surveys were established in the Delta Junction Agricultural Project in 2000, and in Tok (2014). Sooty grouse surveys were established in spring 2015 in and around the communities of Juneau and Petersburg. For willow and rock ptarmigan, we use a broadcasted recording of a territorial male along established transects and record the number of males that respond within ¼ mile. Survey routes have been established along the Denali (1997), Richardson (1997), Parks (2000), Taylor (2015), and Steese (2007) highways, inside Denali National Park (2014), along trails on the Kenai Peninsula (2014), and locations away from road access in Unit 13. These surveys will continue to be monitored annually.

Based on surveys in spring 2017, monitored populations are generally abundant and widespread. Interior ruffed grouse populations are near their cyclic high, although 2017 data suggests populations near Delta Junction and Tok may be starting to decline. Sharp-tailed grouse populations near Delta Junction and Tok appear to be highly abundant and widespread. Sooty grouse densities are also remarkably stable and at high abundance throughout Southeast. Monitored willow and rock ptarmigan populations throughout the road-system in 2017 are generally at higher abundance in most locations than the long-term average. However, based on hunter and ADF&G staff reports, ptarmigan populations throughout the Yukon-Kuskokwin delta and the Alaska Peninsula are at very low abundance prompting concern from local biologists.

20

Contact. Richard A. Merizon, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1800 Glenn Hwy, Suite 2, Palmer, AK 99645. Phone: 907.746.6333; E-mail: richard.merizon@alaska.gov OR Cameron Carroll, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK. 99701. Phone: 907.459.7237; e-mail: cameron.carroll@alaska.gov.

Literature Cited Merizon, R.A. and C.J. Carroll. 2017. Alaska small game summary 2017. 5pp. unpublished report. Available at:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=smallgamehunting.research.

(BCR 4) SIMULATING AVIAN RESPONSES TO CLIMATE-MEDIATED CHANGES IN FUTURE FIRE

REGIMES ACROSS THE NORTHWESTERN BOREAL FOREST

Steve Matsuoka1, Peter Sólymos2, Amy Breen3, Colleen Handel1, Scott Rupp3, Lisa Mahon4, and Tom Kurdowski3

1U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center; 2Boreal Avian Modelling Project; 3University of Alaska Fairbanks, Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning; 4Environment Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service

The frequency, intensity, and magnitude of wild fires has increased across the boreal forest in recent decades; an upwards trajectory in fire activity that is predicted to continue through the end of the century. We are coupling (1) simulations of landscape change resulting from climate-mediated alterations in fire behavior to the end of the century (Rupp et al. 2017) with (2) avian density models of habitat suitability (Sólymos et al. 2013) developed from a large database of point-count surveys (Barker et al. 2016) with the goal of forecasting responses by boreal forest birds (≥25 species) to projected landscape changes. The planning area includes the Northwest Interior Forest Region (BCR 4) which spans the boreal forest regions of Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, and a small portion of the Northwest Territories. We plan to spatially decompose the magnitude of avian population changes relative to public land ownership to demonstrate how agency stewardship responsibilities for regional bird populations will change over the century. We also plan to highlight areas that are forecast to remain relatively stable relative to climate and fire activity. These areas could be managed as climate-change refugia that help species’ adapt to regional change.

Contact. Steve Matsuoka, USGS Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508. Phone: (907)786-7075; E-mail: smatsuoka@usgs.gov

Literature cited Barker, N. K. S., P. C. Fontaine, S. G. Cumming, D. Stralberg, A. Westwood, E. M. Bayne, P. Sólymos, F. K. A.

Schmiegelow, S. J. Song, and D. J. Rugg. 2015. Ecological monitoring through harmonizing existing data: lessons from the Boreal Avian Modelling Project. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:480-487.

Rupp, T. S., P. Duffy, M Leonawicz, M. Lindgren, A. Breen, T. Kurkowski, A. Floyd, A. Bennett, and L. Krutikov. 2016. Climate simulations, land cover, and wildfire. Pages 17–52, In Baseline and projected future carbon storage and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of Alaska (Z. Zhu and A. D. McGuire, editors). U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1826.

Sólymos, P., S. M. Matsuoka, E. M. Bayne, S. R. Lele, P. Fontaine, S. G. Cumming, D. Stralberg, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and S. J. Song. 2013. Calibrating indices of avian density from non-standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:1047–1058.

21

(BCR 4) WILLOW AND ROCK PTARMIGAN DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENT STUDIES IN SOUTH-CENTRAL AND INTERIOR ALASKA, 2017 UPDATE

Rick Merizon and Cameron Carroll, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Since 2013, the Small Game Program has initiated three separate ptarmigan radio-tracking projects in Alaska. A Willow Ptarmigan study documented movement patterns near the proposed Watana Hydroelectric Project Site in the upper Susitna River basin and was concluded in 2016 (Frye and Merizon, in prep.). A Rock Ptarmigan study documented distribution and movement in Game Management Unit (GMU) 13B and was completed in 2017. Finally, beginning in spring 2014, a second study was initiated documenting movement, survival, and nesting success of rock ptarmigan within a historical study area (Weeden 1965) near Eagle Summit along the Steese Highway. Female and male rock ptarmigan were captured and collared in May to collect data on movements, survival, and nesting success. In addition, staff has conducted an annual spring-time survey of breeding male rock ptarmigan. In 2014, observers partially completed an abundance survey following methods described by Weeden (1965). Survey methods were altered from 2015-2017 to include yearly estimates of detection probability in addition to abundance using distance sampling methodology (Buckland et al. 2001). This study is ongoing with field work expected to continue into 2020.

Contact. Richard A. Merizon, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1800 Glenn Hwy, Suite 2, Palmer, AK 99645. Phone: (907)746-6333; Email: richard.merizon@alaska.gov; Cameron Carroll, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK. 99701. Phone: (907)459-7237; Email: cameron.carroll@alaska.gov

Literature cited Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001. Introduction to

distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, New York. Frye G. G., and R. A. Merizon. In preparation. Population ecology or willow ptarmigan in unit 13: Study Plan

Section 10.17; Study Completion Report. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241).

Weeden, R. B. 1965. Grouse and ptarmigan in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-6-R-5, Juneau.

(BCR 4, 5) ARRIVAL DATE AND ACROSS SEASON DETECTABILITY OF SONGBIRDS ON THE KENAI

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Dawn R Magness, Todd Eskelin, and John Morton, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

Songbirds on the Kenai Peninsula are shifting phenology in response to milder winters and a longer growing season. Our objectives are to: (1) document springtime arrival of songbird species on the Kenai Peninsula, (2) estimate detection probabilities for common songbird species, and (3) understand if and how detection probability varies across seasonal breeding phenology. We deployed 12 Wildlife Acoustics SongMeter SM2s across a range of vegetation types on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Eight deployment locations were aligned with BBS survey stop locations. We recorded 3-minute intervals at the start of each hour for 4 hours after sunrise beginning in April 2017. We are currently listening to the recordings to document the species present in each 3-minute sampling window. Our next steps will be to estimate detection probabilities and explore automating sound recording processing

22

Contact. Dawn Magness, USFWS, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, PO Box 2139, Soldonta, Alaska. Email: Dawn_Magness@fws.gov, Phone: 907-260-2814.

(BCR 4, 5) OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER MIGRATION AND BREEDING BIOLOGY

Julie C. Hagelin, Marian L. Snively, Alaska Department of Fish and Game; James A. Johnson, Laura A. McDuffie Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Overview: In 2013 we began a multi-year study of Olive-sided Flycatchers (Contopus cooperi) in central and south-central Alaska. This long-distance migratory insectivore is of long-standing conservation concern, with nearly half of a 76% population decline occurring in the past decade (Sauer et al. 2012). Over 5 years, we have used light-level geolocators and Pinpoint GPS to identify key migratory corridors, stopover sites, and wintering areas to inform conservation efforts. Other research goals included: (1) characterizing nest chronology and success, (2) sampling aerial insects at breeding sites, as food availability is hypothesized to limit reproductive success (Altman and Sallabanks 2012), and (3) re-surveying historical breeding sites from Wright (1997) to document any changes in bird occupancy.

Summary of geolocator efforts: To date, 24 of 92 units have returned (3 of 8 [38%] deployed in 2013, and 8 of 27 [30%] deployed in 2014, and 9 of 38 [24%] deployed in 2015, and 4 of 19 [21%] deployed in 2016). Those recovered during the 2017 breeding season included 4 GPS tags and one light-level geolocator. All birds were uninjured and in good condition. The five returning adults also paired successfully and fledged chicks. The bird carrying the light-level geolocator returned after two-years away, highlighting the scientific and ethical responsibility to monitor all sites for at least two seasons.

Unfortunately, only 1 of 4 GPS tags recovered in 2017 contained data. This unit revealed a “cluster” of points (all within 150m) taken over winter (Nov-Mar), suggestive of a discrete wintering territory. Since 2016, 7 of 8 GPS tags have failed (n=5 Lotek Pinpoint-10’s and n=2 Lotek 80-point “Swift fixes”). Lotek has been unable to diagnose malfunctions, causing researchers in Alaska and Canada to discontinue use of these devices on OSFL. We understand Lotek’s GPS tags have been successful for other songbirds, and our experience may be a species-specific issue.

We are continuing to analyze light-level geolocator data in collaboration with Michael Hallworth at the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. Units collected to date have provided data on 14 individuals (12 male, 2 females) and represent 17 round-trip journeys. Three birds provided two consecutive years of data, which suggest inter-annual site fidelity during winter. Wintering occurs in two general areas: (1) western Columbia/Ecuador/northern Peru, and (2) southern Peru/western Brazil. Only 43% of birds crossed the Gulf of Mexico during fall migration. Consequently, eastern coastal and southern Mexico stand-out as key areas during both fall and spring migration. We have also identified 13 stop-over areas throughout the annual migratory route. We are currently ranking the sites relative to conservation need, given the extent to which the areas are currently protected (UNEP-WCMC 2017).

Nest chronology: Table 1 summarizes nest data for 2013-2017 seasons by location. Egg-laying in Anchorage preceded Fairbanks each year except 2015, which was an exceptionally warm, early spring in central Alaska. Range of fledging dates, however, shows notable overlap in both regions. Hatching and fledging dates during 2015-2017, for the Fairbanks area only, occurred ~7-10 days earlier than those previously reported for central Alaska (Wright 1997).

Nest success by location: Anchorage and Fairbanks locations showed no marked differences in nest success. Over the past five seasons, 28 of 33 nests (84%) fledged at least one or more nestlings in Fairbanks, compared to 15 of 20 nests (75%) in Anchorage (Table 1). Success rates in the Fairbanks area are somewhat higher than those documented previously (8 of 13 nests [62%]; Wright 1997).

23

Historical site surveys, and insect data: We have completed three consecutive years of surveys at nine “historical” breeding sites in the Fairbanks area, previously studied by Wright (1997). Surveys covered a listening area of ~987 hectares per site and maintained a high detection probability (> 90%) at each of five survey points per site, given detection distances and singing rates from Wright (1997). Lone singing males were detected near (~1km) two historical sites (in spring 2015 and fall 2016) for up to two days, passing through during migratory periods only.

Analysis of three years of insect sampling is still underway. University of Alaska, Fairbanks Insect Collection (D. Sikes) has completed insect identification. Preliminary results indicate that historical sites (all of which were no longer occupied by OSFL) were similar in insect biomass, but lower in insect diversity (Shannon Index, calculated at the taxonomic Order level) than sites where OSFL were actively breeding. Work is ongoing, and patterns should be interpreted cautiously, as there appears to be substantial regional and inter-annual variation.

Contact. Julie C. Hagelin, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Rd., Fairbanks, AK 99701. Phone: (907) 459-7239; E-mail: julie.hagelin@alaska.gov

Table 1: Nesting chronology of Olive-sided Flycatchers in Anchorage and Fairbanks, 2013-2017. Mean and range is listed for each variable. Sample size by location is also listed at the top of each column (e.g. 4A, 4F = 4 Anchorage, 4 Fairbanks).

Mean Date (range) 2013

n=8 nests (4A, 4F)

2014 n=9 nests (4A, 5 F)

2015 n=14 nests (5A, 9F)

2016 n= 13 nests

(6A, 7F)

2017 n=9

(1A, 8F)

Location

First egg laid

3 June (28 May–14

June*)

5 June (28 May*–8

June)

6 June (29 May*–13

June*)

4 June (23 May*–20

June*)

29 May* Anchorage

13 June (5*–18June)

12 June (01*–21* June)

3 June (25 May*–12

June*)

10 June (27 May*–30

June*)

3 June (24 May*–7 June*)

Fairbanks

Clutch size

Hatching

4.3 eggs (4–5)

3 eggs (2–4) 22 June

(16 June–3 July)

4 eggs

3.4 eggs (3–4) 17 June

(12–17 June)

4 eggs (3–5)

3.6 eggs* (3–4) 23 June

(13 June*–1 July)

4 eggs (3–4)*

4 eggs* 19 June

(8 June*–6 July*)

Unknown (at least 2 eggs) 3.1eggs* (2–4)

21 June*

Anchorage

Fairbanks Anchorage

30 June (22 June*–4 July*)

29 June (20June*–6

July*)

20 June (12 June*– 30

June*)

17 June (13 June*–21

June*)

20 June (10*–23 June*)

Fairbanks

Fledging 12 July (6–21 July)

5 July (1–5 July)

12 July (3 July–21 July*)

10 July (27 June–25 July)

3 July* Anchorage

20 July (12 July*–24 July)

17 July (9*–25* July)

10 July (29 June –21 July*)

5 July (16 June*–18* July)

10 July (30 June*–14 July*)

Fairbanks

*Date back-calculated based on other data, such as number of eggs in nest, estimated chick age (per Jongsomjit et al. 2007), fledge date, etc. If eggs were not seen, brood size was used as proxy for clutch size.

Literature cited: Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2012. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), The Birds of North America

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502

Jongsomjit, D., S. L. Jones, T. Gardali, G. R. Geupel, P. J. Gouse. 2007. A guide to nestling development and aging in altricial passerines. Biological Technical Publication BTP-R6008-2007. U.S. Fish and Wildllife Service, Shepherdstown, West Virginia.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B. G. Peterjohn. 2012. The North American Breeding Bird Survey: results and analysis. Version 96.3. Patuxent Wildl. Res. Center, Laurel, MD. [Online.] http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

24

UNEP-WCMC. 2017. World Database on Protected Areas User Manual 1.5. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual

Wright, J. M. 1997. Olive-sided Flycatchers in central Alaska, 1994-1996. Final Rep. Proj. SE-3-4. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Restoration, Juneau, AK. Retrieved online: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=librarypublications.swg

(BCR 5) JUNEAU TREE SWALLOW NEST WATCH, 2017 UPDATE

Brenda Wright and Gwen Baluss, Juneau Audubon Society

Since 2015 Juneau Audubon Society and local student volunteers constructed Tree Swallow nest boxes (using a pattern developed the Golondrinas project http://golondrinas.cornell.edu/) and placed them in wetlands near Juneau, Alaska. They were monitored for occupancy by citizen scientists. Observers were encouraged to use the Cornell Nestwatch (http://nestwatch.org/) protocol when checking nest boxes, and to visit at least bi-weekly.

In 2017, there were 67 nest boxes erected (+10 for Violet-green Swallows). This resulted in 27 Tree Swallow boxes with successful nests, 17 unhatched eggs, 12 dead hatchlings, and 1 dead adult. We lost two boxes to bears, but after the young had fledged. This year had a proportionally higher mortality of fledglings than 2016 (causes unknown). The first Tree Swallows were observed between April 15-18. The first eggs were observed May 2. Active feeding at nest boxes occurred June 12-25. This year was much colder on average than 2016.

The goals for continuing the project in 2018 include: having 65 boxes up before April 1, recruiting more citizen scientists, continuing to record phenology, and finding optimal locations for occupancy. We confirmed that Violet-green Swallows do not often use constructed nest boxes, so we will use those boxes for more Tree Swallow locations.

This project was started with support from Audubon Alaska for swallow box building materials and continued with funds from Juneau Audubon Society. Thanks to the Juneau Community Charter School for new box construction in 2017. Many of this year’s swallow observations were compiled by Hannah Scharf, our summer Intern. Thanks to the US Forest Service Juneau Ranger District for housing and equipment for her work,

In 2018, we are planning to initiate a banding project at the nest boxes. This will allow better information about the return rates for adult birds, and open the door for more study. Equipment purchase is underway thanks to a grant from Alaska Songbird Institute in Fairbanks. A network of Tree Swallow studies is forming for Alaska. Together we hope to learn more about this aerial insectivore.

Contact. Brenda Wright, Juneau Audubon Society, P.O. Box 21725, Juneau, AK 99802 Email: at-large_b@juneau-audubon-society.org

(BCR 5) OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHERS IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA: ADULT SURVIVAL, MIGRATION, CITIZEN SURVEYS, 2017 UPDATE

Catherine Pohl, Catherine Pohl Biological Consulting

The southeastern Alaska Olive-sided Flycatcher research project summarized in last year’s BPIF update continued in 2017, with most work occurring along the Hoonah road system on NE Chichagof Island. Since 2014, a total of 18 OSFL have been color-banded for a small study of adult survival. Of the 16 OSFL captured before 2017, 10 were re-sighted the following year, and several in subsequent years, including one re-sighted each year since it was banded in 2014.

25

With geolocator deployment planned for 2018, the 2017 focus was on re-sighting color-banded birds, locating additional territories, and community outreach. A second roadside nest (and fledgling activity) was documented with video. The Hoonah FS District continued in-kind support and four Hoonah residents assisted with captures, re-sighting, and/ nest observations.

The next phase of the project, migration research, is planned for spring 2018. Partial funding has been secured with Discovery Southeast for an initial set of geolocators and for analysis of feather and blood samples; other requests are pending. For additional documentation of distribution and breeding, the proposed project includes a citizen science component, with spatial/habitat data analysis for survey site selection; community outreach and field ornithology workshops for recruitment of volunteers; and establishment of an online data portal and archive.

Contact. Catherine Pohl, Catherine Pohl Biological Consulting, Phone (907) 597-1272; E-mail: catherine.pohl@outlook.com

(BCR 5) PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND ZONE, CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST, 2017 UPDATE

Erin Cooper and Melissa Gabrielson, U.S. Forest Service

MONITORING

BBS Routes. Cordova has two 24.5 km routes, however, only one route is currently accessible due to the bridge closure at mile 37 of the Copper River Highway. Breeding Bird Survey route #050 was completed by the Cordova Ranger District in June 2017. The data collected from the survey was entered into the database managed by the Cornell Ornithology Lab for inclusion in the National Database.

Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey (ALMS). This was the 13th year of implementing this point count protocol on the Chugach National Forest. Two ALMS blocks were surveyed in 2017 on the Cordova Ranger District. Locations included Kayak Island and Bettles Bay. All grids were successfully accessed and surveyed. Two full-time technicians and one biologist from the Cordova Ranger District contributed. All GPS points are stored in a database to assist with re-locating points in future years. Point count data was compiled, entered into a database, and sent to the USGS Alaska Science Center for further data management and analysis.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Copper River Delta Shorebird Festival. The 27th annual shorebird festival was held on May 5-7, 2017. The Copper River Delta Shorebird Festival is a collaborative event with partners from the Cordova Chamber of Commerce and the US Forest Service Cordova Ranger District. The Festival focuses on educating the public about birds, bird conservation, and bird life cycles and strategies through a variety of activities, classes, crafts, and workshops. This year’s festival featured guest speakers Lisa Kennedy, Joan Walsh, , and David Sibley. Lisa Is a CGS-Doctoral NSERC Awardee currently in the third year of her doctorate. For the past three summers she has led a team of researchers for Environmental Canada on the tundra at one of the longest running breeding shorebird monitoring camps in the Arctic. Joan Walsh is the author of the book “Birds of New Jersey”. Joan has been watching and learning from birds for 35 years and has been the Director of the Bird Monitoring at Mass Audubon since 2006. David Sibley is the author of “The Sibely’s Guide to Birds, Sibley’s Birding Basics” and others. He is the recipient of the Roger Tory Peterson Award for lifetime achievement from the American Birding Association and the Linnaean Society of New York’s Eisenmann Medal. Maya the western sandpiper was able to make an appearance at the 2017 Festival. She provided excitement within the community about the Festival and helped educate the public about the interconnectivity of shorebirds and their international ties.

26

 

 

Contact. Erin Cooper, Prince William Sound Zone Terrestrial Staff, US Forest Service, 612 2nd St, Cordova, AK 99574-0280; Phone: (907)424-4757; E-mail: ecooper@fs.fed.us; Melissa Gabrielson, Prince William Sound Zone Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service, 612 2nd St, Cordova, AK 99574-0280; Phone: (907)424-4743; E-mail: melissalgabrielson@fs.fed.us

(BCR 5) SITKA WINTER BIRD OBSERVATION PROJECT, 2017 UPDATE

Gwen Baluss, Juneau Audubon Society; Kitty LaBounty, University of Alaska Southeast; Matt Goff, sitkanature.org

Southeast Alaska hosts migratory birds both as a summer breeding ground, and a winter destination. Few studies focus on winter birds. From 2012 to 2017 we investigated wintering land bird species in Sitka, Alaska, with a color-banding. We targeted Dark-eyed (Oregon) Junco, Song Sparrow, and Chestnut-backed Chickadee. We hoped to learn more about 1) site fidelity of local over-wintering individuals, and 2) spatial patterns of local individuals throughout the year. Additional objectives were to 1) increase interest and knowledge of grade-school and high school students about wintering songbirds, 2) provide a community-wide citizen-science opportunity to study birds and discuss the results, and 3) provide a forum to discuss anthropogenic causes of local bird mortality.

Annually, in November, we captured birds by mist net or ground trap and fitted individuals of target species with unique color band combinations. Dark-eyed Juncos (over 300) were banded at nine locations over the six years. Chestnut-backed Chickadees (over 30) and Song Sparrows (about 20) have been banded in much smaller numbers. Other species captured as “bycatch” were banded simply with USGS numbered metal bands. Citizen scientists report sightings of color banded birds. Findings are entered into a spacial database for further analysis. Please refer to the 2016 BPIF Annual Report for a summary of results 2012-2016. In 2017 we registered a number of recaptures and re-sightings from previous seasons, but no significant difference in patterns from previous seasons was noted.

To report encounters of color-banded birds in Sitka, see: http://wiki.seaknature.org/Form:SBBP_observation

Other communities please contact the authors if you have seen a color-banded bird of the above species.

Any band recovery should still be reported to the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory: https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbl/

Contact. Gwen Baluss, 10236 Heron Way, Juneau AK 99801 Phone: (907) 500-2771 E-mail: gbaluss@gmail.com

(BCR 5) TONGASS HUMMINGBIRD PROJECT, 2017 UPDATE

Gwen Baluss, Juneau Audubon Society

The Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus, RUHU) breeding range is tied to northwestern temperate forests. The species has been identified as a priority for monitoring, research and management in BCR 5. In 2017, I continued effort from 2013-2016 seasons of banding hummingbirds, with protocols based on those developed by Rocky Point Bird Observatory (http://www.rpbo.org/hummingbirds.php) and the Hummingbird Monitoring Network (http://hummonnet.org). I banded at sites near Juneau: Jensen-Olson Arboretum (JOAR) and Juneau Community Garden (JCGA). Effort was repeated as close as possible to

27

the dates and times in previous years for JCGA. However, the JOAR site was not available in 2017 beyond a few opportunistic visits.

From 2013 through 2017, I banded over 570 Rufous Hummingbirds at the two stations. Trapping effort was similar across years, with trapping taking place approximately every two weeks between April 20 and July 20. However, varying weather, volunteer proficiency and the variable and unpredictable timing of birds either disappearing or showing up in “swarms” makes true standardization impossible.

Captures in 2016 yielded a sizeable decrease of adults and young birds compared to previous years (Table 1) with only slightly less effort. The daily probability of capturing birds at a feeder is likely a function of not only the actual number of birds in the area but the availability of natural food. Thus, changes in phenology could affect capture rates. This was only a single year of data, and may or may not reflect a local or regional change in populations, but does reflect the high degree of variability in attempting to encounter hummingbirds for any type of survey. Such potential variability should be taken in to consideration when interpreting results for hummingbirds from one-visit annual site surveys such as ALMS and BBS. It should also be noted that the low numbers at JOAR paralleled an exceptionally warm spring and plants, according to records kept by the arboretum staff, were blooming up to one month early. I hope to continue monitoring the two stations in 2018 and to see if fluctuation as seen in 2016 continues.

Although monitoring was reduced in 2017, I did continue to recapture previously banded adults for a study of plumage change over time. Every bird is photographed, and data is beginning to show a pattern that there is little change in individuals in the extent of red on the back for males or throat for females as they age.

An interesting encounter was made in 2017. An adult RUHU female banded in on July 5 at the JCGA was encountered one week later on July 12 at Lesser Slave Lake Migration Monitoring Station in Alberta, Canada. Calculating for a straight-line path, she was traveling over 100 miles per day. The species is considered rare at this semi-boreal site, which is slightly east of the assumed southward pathway.

Throughout the range of RUHU, an effort is being made to better understand feeding habits. In 2017 we tested a protocol being developed by the National Park Service in New Mexico for collecting pollen off of hummingbirds. This effort was lead locally by University of Oregon MS student Kristen Zelman. Several samples swabbed from birds’ bills and head did yield pollen. However, secure identification of the pollen was beyond our skills and microscopic capacity. Some of the pollen found was shaped consistent with known local hummingbird plants such as Vaccinium sp. Reference slides of key local plants were also made. Future studies will need to include a palynologist, or at the very least, more students/time committed to make additional local reference slides, and find access to higher quality light microscopes or scanning electromicrography.

Initial support for the establishment of Rufous Hummingbird banding stations was provided by the US Forest Service, Region 10, Alaska. This is now a volunteer-run project. Sites and logistical support has been provided by the Juneau Community Garden Association, and City and Borough of Juneau, and Juneau Audubon Society; pollen project aided by University of Oregon, University of Alaska Southeast and the USFS PNW Forestry Science Lab, Juneau.

Contact. Gwen Baluss, 10236 Heron Way, Juneau AK 99801 Phone: (907) 500-2771 E-mail: gbaluss@gmail.com

Table 1. Total Rufous Hummingbird captures, including both new captures, and recaptures from previous years. (Recaptures within the same year were not counted). 2017 was not included for JOAR because effort was significantly reduced.

Year JOAR JCGA

2017 Adult Male 17

28

Adult Female

Hatch Year Male

Hatch Year Female

23

9

4

2016

Adult Male

Adult Female

Hatch Year Male

Hatch Year Female

3

17

0

0

25

17

12

2

2015

Adult Male

Adult Female

Hatch Year Male

Hatch Year Female

22

71

2

2

43

21

4

8

2014

Adult Male

Adult Female

Hatch Year Male

Hatch Year Female

27

49

14

7

15

13

7

4

2013

Adult Male

Adult Female

Hatch Year Male

Hatch Year Female

28

36

8

9

12

29

9

1

(BCR 5) TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, 2017 LANDBIRD UPDATE

Bonnie Bennetsen, Cheryl Carrothers, Gwen Baluss, Susan Oehlers, Joe Delabrue, Toby Bakos, and Marlene Duvall, U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region

INVENTORY & MONITORING

Breeding Bird Survey Routes. USFS personnel continued to count some routes and coordinated as requested with volunteers, other agencies and NGO’s to assist with completion for other routes within the Tongass zone: at Yakutat (2 routes), Chichagof Island (2 routes), Prince of Wales Island (2 routes), Mitkof Island, and Stikine River.

Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey (ALMS). This was the fifteenth year of implementing the ALMS protocol. However, only one site was counted this year, on Chichagof Island, functioning as a control for the TLAT study.

Tongass Landbirds and Thinning (TLAT) Study. TNF launched this project in 2016. Using a modified version of the ALMS protocol, with the addition of timber and deer habitat measures, 6 stands were surveyed this year for the purpose of assessing 40+ year old young growth habitat and comparing

29

treatments of pre-commercial timber thinning vs. no thinning. Grids were on Prince of Wales and Chichagof Island.

Northern Goshawk Surveys. The Tongass NF continues to conduct surveys annually for occupancy by breeding Northern Goshawks in areas where uses such as timber sales, roads, mining, hydroelectric, recreational trails, or other activities are proposed within suitable forest habitat. Wildlife personnel catalog all surveys— including those by FS or contractors, anecdotal observations, and checks of known nests— in the agency’s spacial database Natural Resource Information Systems (NRIS).

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND CITIZEN SCIENCE

Christmas Bird Count. Hoonah, Wrangell, Petersburg Ranger Districts (HRD, WRD & PRD) personnel continue to help coordinate the local CBC efforts in their communities.

International Migratory Bird Day. Juneau Ranger District (JRD) offered songbird banding demonstration in partnership with Juneau Audubon Society and the Juneau Community Garden Association.

Festivals. The USFS and Yakutat Ranger District (YRD) were key partners in the seventh annual Yakutat Tern Festival in June. Educational activities include field trips for all types of birds, passerine banding, and kid’s programs.

WRD is a key partner in the Stikine River Birding Festival annually. Activities include field trips which included all types of birds, and passerine banding. Ketchikan celebrates the Alaska Hummingbird Festival.

The USFS Southeast Alaska Discovery Center helps host this annual a month-long celebration with bird-themed activities that include guided bird hikes, a juried art contest, film presentations, arts and crafts workshops, and kids’ programs.

Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center Interpreters received training on Southeast Alaska bird ID and conservation so they share their skills with some of the 450,000 center visitors. PRD, WRD and HRD personnel conducted multiple bird-themed elementary school presentations in their respective communities. HRD organized a Community Bird Program, a series of class and field identification sessions for teens and adults. PRD provided hummingbird information during an open public for National Pollinator Week.

PARTNERSHIPS AND COOPERATION

PRD and JRD personnel assisted researchers from the Institute for Bird Populations with distributional information and help with field work conducting Common Yellowthroat sampling on Mitkof Island for the UCLA Bird Genoscape Project.

Tongass and Alaska region USFS continue to participate in the Western Hummingbird Partnership (http://www.westernhummingbird.org) fostering conservation efforts for the Rufous Hummingbird.

The Tongass NF hosted Student Conservation Association Interns who assisted with various bird projects including the ALMS and TLAT studies.

Contact. Bonnie Bennetsen, Wildlife Program Leader, Tongass National Forest, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau AK 99801 Phone: (907)789-6298 Email: bbennetsen@fs.fed.us

(BCR 6) ADDITIVE AND INTERACTIVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON BOREAL LANDBIRDS: WINNERS

AND LOSERS IN A MULTI-STRESSOR LANDSCAPE

C. Lisa Mahon1, Gillian Holloway2, and Erin M. Bayne3

30

1Environment and Climate Change Canada; 2Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 3University of Alberta

Stressors created by multiple resource industries result in cumulative effects over time and space. Many studies have evaluated single stressors and assumed that cumulative effects can be measured by adding stressors together. However, there is growing evidence that interactive effects are important in structuring biological communities. We evaluated whether the effects of multiple stressors (linear features, energy, forestry) combine additively or interactively by testing a candidate model set of 12 disturbance models for 27 boreal landbird species. We conducted >2700 avian point counts that varied in stressor intensity across resource sectors in the Athabasca Oil Sands Area in northern Alberta, Canada. We created paired additive and interactive Generalized Additive Models and examined model predictions in the current and no-disturbance study area. Of the 27 species examined, an additive disturbance model was the best for 9 species, while an interactive disturbance model was the best for 11 species. Complex synergistic interactions among stressors were observed for 39% of landbird species. In the current study area, disturbance models predicted strong increases for species associated with deciduous forest and open habitats (winning species) and moderate decreases for species associated with conifer forest (losing species). We found a 15% change in the landbird community between the current and no-disturbance study area, approximately twice the area of resource disturbance (8.4%). Continued shifts in the boreal landbird community may occur as cumulative effects from multiple stressors increase.

Contact. C. Lisa Mahon, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 91780 Alaska Highway, Whitehorse, YT Y1A 5X7, Canada. E-mail: lisa.mahon@canada.ca

(BCR 6, 7) LANDBIRD MONITORING IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Samuel Haché and Rhiannon Pankratz, Environment and Climate Change Canada

In recent years, our focus has been on using new technologies, primarily Autonomous Recording Units (ARUs), to increase geographic coverage and improve data quality and data collection efficiency of existing monitoring programs in boreal regions of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We are also exploring how ARU data can used to enhance monitoring programs based on traditional (i.e. human-based) avian point counts.

Liard Valley Landbird Monitoring Program. The summer of 2017 marked the 20th year of the Liard Valley (Northwest Territories) landbird monitoring program. Initiated in 1998, the program provides information on population trends (Machtans et al. 2014), habitat association (Machtans and Latour. 2003, Olson et al 2009, and Savignac and Machtans, 2006), and effects of anthropogenic disturbances (Machtans et al. 2006) in a northern region not well covered by the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). Data collected in 2017 will be integrated in a 20 year trend analysis and test for effects of changes in vegetation composition and structure on species-specific trend estimates. We will also convert our count data into density estimates using offsets generated by the Boreal Avian Modelling Project (BAM; http://www.borealbirds.ca/) and generate species distribution models, habitat-specific density estimates, and regional population estimates.

ARU data collected over ~ 2 weeks (i.e. 12 × 10-min recordings per day plus 1 hour at sunrise) at a subset of sampling stations (n = 112) will be interpreted with automated species recognition algorithms, i.e. species recognizers, for the following species at risk (SAR) in Canada: Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperii), Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), and Canada Warbler (Cardellina candensis) to better estimate habitat association. Lastly, additional 10-min avian points (4 × 10-min.) will be interpreted from these recordings at subset of sampling stations. This information will be used to: 1) build species

31

accumulation curves; 2) quantify differences in sources of variation (i.e. sampling station, site, annual, etc.) with increasing sampling effort at a given sampling station; and 3) determine if such information could generate more precise trend estimates or if ARU-based monitoring could provide a similar level of precision while only monitoring a subset of the sampling stations.

Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings (Pankratz et al. 2017). The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is one of the longest annual avian surveys and has the greatest spatiotemporally extensive coverage in the Western Hemisphere. Although this important survey provides trend estimates for more than 400 species, it has limited coverage in the boreal forest and biases in representation and detectability that complicate inference. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the potential of new technologies and analytical approaches to increase coverage and improve monitoring efficiency.

We documented variation in counts between BBS surveys (hereafter “human BBS”) and different on-road and forest-edge surveys using autonomous recording units (ARUs) from 3 routes in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Specifically, we quantified percent differences (i.e., bias in counts) in species richness, abundance indices of birds, and species-specific variation in counts between human BBS and ARU-based surveys conducted on-road and at the forest edge at different dates and times of day. We also generated on-road effective detection radius (EDR) estimates for 15 species and tested for species-specific differences in EDR to explain bias in counts between on-road and forest-edge ARU surveys.

Overall, species richness and abundance indices in human BBS surveys were higher than forest-edge ARU surveys conducted simultaneously and when similar forest-edge ARU surveys were conducted at sunset and a week earlier in June. However, there was no difference when comparing values from human BBS with on-road ARU BBS and forest-edge ARU surveys conducted at sunrise. Extracting the maximum count per species from 4 types of 3-minute forest-edge surveys increased counts by 62% and 64% for species richness and abundance indices, respectively, relative to human BBS, but the importance of this bias differed considerably among the 10 most common species in the study area.

Our results suggest that false-negative bias in species detection could be corrected with appropriate methods, and ARUs deployed at the forest edge near BBS stops could be used to increase data quality of on-road surveys. When combined with appropriate correction factors to adjust for surveys done at the forest edge, ARUs could also be used to increase the geographic coverage of boreal surveys by allowing inexperienced volunteers to collect BBS data along winter or secondary roads in remote locations.

Other programs in progress Building species distribution models from ARU-based avian point counts and recognizer data, and

estimate population size estimates for Edéhzhíe, a candidate National Wildlife Area in the Northwest Territories;

Testing for effects of fire severity and time since fire on landbird community in the Northwest Territories (M. Knaggs, MSc student; Dr. Erin Bayne, supervisor);

Documenting species distribution and habitat association of landbirds along winter roads in the Northwest Territories

Determining if ARU-based song rates can be used to predict breeding status of the Olive-sided Flycatcher in the Northwest Territories (Emily Upham-Mills, MSc student; Dr. Erin Bayne, supervisor)

Contact. Samuel Haché, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 5019 – 52nd St, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P7. Phone: (867) 669-4771; E-mail: samuel.hache@canada.ca

Literature cited Machtans, C. S., and P. B. Latour. 2003. Boreal forest songbird communities of the Liard Valley, Northwest

Territories, Canada. The Condor 105(1):27-44.

32

Machtans, C. S. 2006. Songbird response to seismic lines in the western boreal forest: a manipulative experiment. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84(10):1421-1430.

Machtans, C. S., K. J. Kardynal, and P. A. Smith. 2014. How well do regional or national Breeding Bird Survey data predict songbird population trends at an intact boreal site? Avian Conservation and Ecology 9(1):5.

Olsen, C. R., K. C. Hannah, and C. Gray. 2009. First confirmed record of breeding brown creepers in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Northwestern Naturalist 90(2):156-159.

Pankratz, R. F., S. Hache, P. Sólymos, and E. M. Bayne. 2017. Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12(2):18.

Savignac, C., and C. S. Machtans. 2006. Habitat requirements of the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Sphyrapicus varius, in boreal mixedwood forests of northwestern Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84(9):1230-1239.

(ALASKA-WIDE) ADAPTATION TO THE ARCTIC: COMMUNITY GENOMICS OF ALASKAN GALLIFORMS

Sarah Sonsthagen, Robert Wilson, Sandra Talbot, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center

The Arctic is characterized by extreme seasonal variability in temperature, day length, and other climatic factors, and species that live in Arctic environments experience more variation in abiotic factors than do species occupying other ecosystems. Extreme cold temperatures are often considered to be the most important selective force in the Arctic, but the synergistic effects of multiple environmental pressures may pose a greater challenge than a single factor alone. Both migratory and resident species are specialized for life in the cool summer and/or cold winter environments characteristic of the Arctic, and the ability of these species to thrive in such extreme landscapes likely requires novel adaptions at genes underling response to environmental signaling. Given their year-round occupancy and specialization to sub-Arctic and Arctic ecosystems, resident species such as ptarmigan and grouse may be more (or differentially) impacted by the challenges faced with environmental change than are migratory species. As well, interpretation of data gathered from resident birds is not complicated by the impact of non-Arctic environments experienced during a portion of the annual cycle, as in migratory birds. We are examining genes associated with pathways (e.g. physiological, environmental signaling, behavioral, and immunological) that may be involved in species’ responses to life in the Arctic, assaying ptarmigan and grouse species sampled along a latitudinal gradient from temperate to sub-arctic to Arctic Alaska. We also are examining levels of gene flow and genetic diversity at neutral markers to estimate a null model of background levels of genetic diversity. The null model will aid in the identification of variation in genes that may have arisen as a result of adaptation to the Arctic and will also provide an indication of the strength of environmental selection and the ability of Arctic populations of gallinaceous birds to respond to a changing Arctic conditions. Furthermore, comparing signatures of selection across closely related species may allow us to parse unique and common evolutionary patterns of adaptation to extreme environments that may not evident when focusing on a single species. Through collaboration with experts in parasitology, we are also using molecular techniques to survey helminths and blood parasites infecting galliform species, a necessary foundation for assessing response of this species group to novel immune challenges predicted for high latitude species as a result of changing environments. This functional genetics approach targeting a suite of resident avian species will provide powerful tools to answer questions about species diversification and interaction, hybridization, population genetic dynamics, and functional adaptation within the context of accelerating environmental change. As such, this approach will provide a much-needed perspective on the ability of these species to respond to changing environmental conditions, and ultimately wildlife persistence and health.

Contact. Sarah Sonsthagen, USGS Alaska Science Center, ssonsthagen@usgs.gov

(ALASKA-WIDE) NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY, ALASKA

33

Boreal Partners in Flight

Overview of the Breeding Bird Survey. The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is the continent’s most widespread breeding bird monitoring program and the longest running survey of breeding bird populations in Alaska. The program became operational in Alaska in 1982, however it wasn’t until 1993 that the program expanded considerably due to participation by members of Boreal Partners in Flight (Figure 1). The program almost exclusively conducts road based surveys, although, in Alaska, river routes are common.

In 2017, 76 BBS survey routes were completed throughout Alaska, which was above the 24-year (1993-2017) average of 71 routes conducted per year. This year received the 8th highest year of participation since 1993 and produced the greatest number of routes completed since 2008. Through the dedication of many observers, 84 routes have been completed in ≥10 years, 52 routes in ≥20 years and 9 routes have been completed in ≥30 years. The routes completed at the highest frequencies include: Toklat (30 years), Zimovia Strait (30 years), Kachemak (31 years), Seven Lakes (32 years), Anchor River (33 years), Galena (33 Years), Little Salcha (34 years) and Swan Lake Road (36 years).

Figure 1. The number of routes completed during the North American Breeding Bird Survey: Alaska (1968-2017). The dashed line refers to the average number of routes completed between 1993–2017 (71.52 routes).

Filling the gap with the Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey. The Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey (ALMS) was developed in 2003 to supplement the road-based BBS surveys (Handel and Sauer 2017). The concern was that most northern avian populations were inadequately monitored due to the scarcity of roads in Alaska. The ALMS program was implemented exclusively as a collection of off-road, 25-point grid surveys, which could be completed in conjunction with BBS routes (USGS 2016). As of 2016, 65 ALMS grids have been established across the 5 Bird Conservation Regions (BRC) in Alaska (USGS 2016). By regularly conducting both ALMS and BBS surveys and comparing population-level results, researchers are able to gain a better understanding of not only Alaska’s long-term avian population trends but also the habitat structures northern breeding species depend on (Handel and Sauer 2017).

Trend Overview. This past year the BBS developed methods for incorporating BBS data from Alaska and northern portions of some Canadian provinces into the trend analysis. This has made trend estimates for Alaska (1993–2014) available for more than 170 species (Sauer et al. 2017, Table 1). In addition, recent population trends for 31 species of shorebirds and passerines in the Northwestern Interior Forest BCR

34

(Bird Conservation Region) and Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR of Alaska have been derived from BBS and ALMS surveys between 2003–2015 (Handel and Sauer 2017). Notably, 5 Neotropical migrants’ species showed populations declines for BBS routes in the Northwestern Interior Forest BCR: Lesser Yellowlegs (–5.3% /yr), Olive-sided Flycatcher (–2.8%/yr), Tree Swallow (–4.6% /yr), Blackpoll Warbler (–5.4% /yr), and Wilson’s Warbler (–4.5% /yr). In the Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR, one Neotropical migrant in particular, the Olive-sided Flycatcher, showed a decline for BBS routes (–3.4% /yr; Table 2).

Future Objectives. In 2018, we hope to continue widespread participation in the Alaska BBS by filling vacancies with knowledgeable and enthusiastic participants. Currently, there are 101 active routes throughout Alaska and of those, 7 routes are vacant for the 2018 season. The majority of the vacant routes are located in remote areas, which require more extensive planning and logistical support than routes in more populous regions of the state. That being said, BBS relies heavily on locals with proficient bird knowledge or those individuals willing and able to travel long distances. A list of available routes as well as route maps and species lists can be found at: (https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbS/).

Contact. Laura McDuffie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., MS 201, Anchorage, AK 99503. Phone: 907-786-3979, Email: laura_mcduffie@fws.gov

Literature Cited Gibson, D. D., and J. Withrow. 2015. Inventory of the species and subspecies of Alaska birds, second edition.

Western Birds 46:94–185. Handel, C. M., and J. R. Sauer. 2017. Combined analysis of roadside and off-road breeding bird survey data to

assess population change in Alaska. Condor. 119:557–575. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Fallon, and R. Johnson . 2003. Use of North American Breeding Bird Survey data to estimate

population change for Bird Conservation Regions. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67:372–389. Sauer, J. R, J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr, and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2013. Version 01.30.2015. Laurel, Maryland: U.S.

Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr, W. A. Link. 2017. Expanding the North American

Breeding Bird Survey analysis to include additional species and regions. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8(1):154-172.

United States Geological Survey [USGS]. 2016. USGS Alaska Science Center. The Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey. https://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/monitor/alms.php.

Table 1. Population change estimates for 176 species encountered on Breeding Bird Survey routes in Alaska (1993–2014; table and caption from Sauer et al. 2017:Table S02). The analysis is based on log-linear hierarchical models (Sauer et al. 2013). For each species, the following is presented: sample size (number of routes, N), trend estimate (% change/year), 2.5% and 97.5% credible intervals (CI) for trend, relative abundance (RA, defined as the annual index in the midyear of the interval) and 2.5% and 97.5% CIs for relative abundance, half-width of the CIs for trend, and a credibility score (R = reasonably monitored, Q = questionably monitored [estimates have ≥1 deficiency]), and P = poorly monitored (Sauer et al. 2014). Values <0.1 are indicated as 0.0. Species not included in previous BBS analyses are indicated with an asterisk (*) in column “New." Trends in blue are significant increases; trends in red are significant declines.

2.5% 97.5% 2.5% 97.5% Half- Credibility Common Name N Trend CI CI RA CI RA CI RA Width Score New Greater White-fronted Goose 17 9.6 0.3 21.7 12.0 2.3 206.1 21.3 P * Canada Goose 54 4.8 -0.2 10.5 19.0 10.9 42.0 10.7 P Trumpeter Swan 29 5.6 0.9 11.2 0.9 0.4 2.0 10.4 P * Tundra Swan 24 -2.5 -9.2 5.4 1.2 0.4 6.6 14.7 P * Gadwall 2 1.5 -21.0 37.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 58.3 P American Wigeon 56 1.5 -1.7 5.2 2.8 1.7 5.0 7.0 P Mallard 65 0.3 -3.0 4.6 1.3 0.9 2.2 7.5 P Northern Shoveler 24 0.8 -4.8 7.2 0.4 0.1 0.9 11.9 P

35

2.5% 97.5% 2.5% 97.5% Half- Credibility Common Name N Trend CI CI RA CI RA CI RA Width Score New Northern Pintail 41 -2.8 -6.7 1.4 1.5 0.8 2.8 8.1 P Green-winged Teal 55 -0.1 -2.8 3.2 1.0 0.7 1.6 6.0 P Ring-necked Duck 21 3.6 -3.4 8.6 0.3 0.2 0.9 12.0 P Greater Scaup 37 2.4 -4.1 9.5 5.9 2.1 24.9 13.6 P * Lesser Scaup 29 -9.8 -20.3 -1.7 1.6 0.7 8.5 18.6 P Common Eider 3 1.3 -9.7 14.1 505.2 17.6 0.0 23.7 P * Harlequin Duck 27 -3.2 -9.4 4.0 1.3 0.4 5.2 13.4 P * Surf Scoter 12 3.4 -12.1 26.0 36.2 0.7 0.0 38.1 P * White-winged Scoter 15 -7.4 -16.5 2.5 0.5 0.1 13.7 18.9 P * Black Scoter 12 11.1 0.1 24.5 1.3 0.2 65.7 24.4 P * Long-tailed Duck 14 -6.7 -12.4 0.0 0.5 0.2 1.9 12.4 P * Bufflehead 23 0.8 -3.4 5.7 0.6 0.4 1.4 9.2 P Common Goldeneye 32 2.2 -1.0 6.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 7.2 P Barrow's Goldeneye 20 -0.1 -3.9 4.2 0.3 0.1 0.6 8.2 P Hooded Merganser 3 5.2 -4.6 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 18.8 P Common Merganser 39 1.8 -2.5 8.1 0.3 0.2 0.7 10.6 P Red-breasted Merganser 29 -3.0 -7.1 1.3 3.2 1.5 7.1 8.4 P Ruffed Grouse 20 0.1 -4.8 5.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 10.7 P Spruce Grouse 8 2.2 -6.9 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 19.1 P * Willow Ptarmigan 30 0.4 -6.4 7.7 7.0 2.1 38.6 14.1 P * Rock Ptarmigan 6 14.5 -0.1 29.3 0.4 0.1 14.2 29.4 P * Sooty Grouse 9 3.9 0.9 8.0 2.1 1.1 4.3 7.1 P Sharp-tailed Grouse 4 0.6 -7.7 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 19.7 P Red-throated Loon 39 0.5 -3.1 4.4 0.4 0.2 0.8 7.5 P * Pacific Loon 37 -0.9 -5.6 4.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 9.6 P * Common Loon 47 0.4 -1.5 2.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 3.8 Q Horned Grebe 13 -3.3 -8.2 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 9.1 P Red-necked Grebe 23 -3.5 -6.5 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.6 6.5 P Double-crested Cormorant 2 4.9 -9.5 20.8 0.1 0.0 2.2 30.3 P Pelagic Cormorant 4 -4.8 -16.2 4.6 0.8 0.1 8.0 20.9 P Great Blue Heron 13 -3.9 -9.0 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 10.1 P Osprey 11 4.6 0.4 8.8 1.5 0.8 2.8 8.4 P Bald Eagle 62 2.5 0.9 4.3 1.5 1.1 1.9 3.4 Q Northern Harrier 38 0.1 -2.3 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.1 P Sharp-shinned Hawk 18 2.0 -1.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 P Northern Goshawk 28 2.1 -2.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 P Red-tailed Hawk 37 1.5 -1.2 4.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 5.9 P Rough-legged Hawk 18 -0.5 -5.6 6.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 12.1 P * Golden Eagle 10 -0.3 -4.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.4 P Sora 3 -0.3 -9.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 P Sandhill Crane 50 2.8 0.0 5.9 2.3 1.5 3.9 5.8 P Black Oystercatcher 2 -4.2 -15.0 6.3 0.5 0.0 6.1 21.3 P * American Golden-Plover 11 -1.9 -10.1 4.8 0.3 0.1 0.7 14.9 P * Pacific Golden-Plover 9 -0.6 -7.9 7.9 1.9 0.6 21.9 15.8 P * Semipalmated Plover 37 -3.7 -8.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.8 8.8 P * Killdeer 4 -0.1 -5.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.8 P Spotted Sandpiper 59 -0.5 -2.3 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.3 3.6 Q Solitary Sandpiper 28 -2.3 -5.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 5.9 P Wandering Tattler 7 3.2 -8.5 15.7 0.1 0.0 1.3 24.1 P * Greater Yellowlegs 42 1.9 -0.7 4.8 1.9 1.1 3.5 5.5 P Lesser Yellowlegs 56 -3.4 -5.7 -1.3 2.5 1.7 3.6 4.3 Q Upland Sandpiper 6 -6.9 -13.4 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 12.4 P Whimbrel 17 2.5 -3.8 10.7 1.6 0.6 6.9 14.5 P * Bar-tailed Godwit 4 -6.1 -24.5 14.3 0.5 0.1 45.7 38.8 P * Ruddy Turnstone 5 -7.7 -17.5 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 21.7 P * Least Sandpiper 23 -2.3 -6.5 2.2 0.5 0.2 1.4 8.6 P * Western Sandpiper 11 -7.9 -18.0 2.0 16.3 2.9 998.2 20.1 P * Short-billed Dowitcher 9 0.9 -5.6 7.4 0.7 0.1 35.5 13.0 P * Wilson's Snipe 83 0.8 -0.6 2.2 13.8 10.5 18.6 2.8 R Red-necked Phalarope 18 -4.4 -11.6 2.4 0.4 0.2 1.3 14.0 P * Parasitic Jaeger 8 -0.3 -9.2 8.7 0.4 0.1 2.4 17.9 P * Long-tailed Jaeger 17 -2.9 -7.5 1.8 2.7 1.4 5.8 9.3 P * Pigeon Guillemot 7 5.3 -2.1 14.2 1.5 0.4 7.9 16.3 P * Marbled Murrelet 16 4.5 0.4 9.0 21.1 8.0 75.8 8.6 P * Black-legged Kittiwake 9 2.1 -11.0 16.5 68.5 4.1 7124.3 27.5 P * Bonaparte's Gull 36 -0.1 -4.5 4.7 0.7 0.3 1.7 9.2 P * Mew Gull 79 -4.2 -6.9 -1.6 9.5 6.1 16.7 5.3 P * Herring Gull 34 -1.4 -4.7 2.3 3.7 2.0 7.4 7.0 P

36

2.5% 97.5% 2.5% 97.5% Half- Credibility Common Name N Trend CI CI RA CI RA CI RA Width Score New Glaucous-winged Gull 42 -3.9 -8.2 0.5 31.9 12.4 98.7 8.8 P Glaucous Gull 15 4.9 -3.0 14.8 6.7 1.7 64.7 17.8 P * Aleutian Tern 5 -4.8 -16.0 9.1 10.9 0.8 0.0 25.2 P * Arctic Tern 51 -2.5 -5.7 0.8 2.9 1.7 5.5 6.5 P * Rock Pigeon 4 0.5 -3.6 4.6 0.5 0.2 1.2 8.2 P Eurasian Collared-Dove 4 51.1 32.4 76.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 44.2 P Great Horned Owl 30 -0.7 -3.8 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 5.9 P Northern Hawk Owl 22 4.3 -0.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.8 P * Northern Pygmy-Owl 5 0.8 -6.3 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 P Great Gray Owl 6 2.9 -4.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 P * Short-eared Owl 27 -1.2 -6.3 5.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 11.8 P Boreal Owl 7 -6.5 -18.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 P * Northern Saw-whet Owl 5 -1.5 -23.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 32.8 P * Vaux's Swift 3 1.7 -5.0 40.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 45.9 P Rufous Hummingbird 18 1.0 -0.8 2.8 2.2 1.6 3.2 3.6 Q Belted Kingfisher 57 -1.4 -3.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 3.6 Q Red-breasted Sapsucker 16 1.6 -1.5 4.6 8.0 4.7 14.0 6.1 P "Yellow-bellied" Sapsucker complexa 16 2.9 -1.8 7.7 7.5 4.5 12.3 9.5 P Downy Woodpecker 33 -0.7 -4.8 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 8.1 P Hairy Woodpecker 45 0.0 -2.5 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 5.4 P American Three-toed Woodpecker 30 -1.4 -6.7 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 10.0 P Black-backed Woodpecker 6 3.7 -6.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 P American Kestrel 12 -2.0 -6.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 P Merlin 40 3.7 -0.2 7.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.4 P Gyrfalcon 6 8.2 0.1 24.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 24.5 P * Peregrine Falcon 12 7.8 0.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 P Olive-sided Flycatcher 62 -2.2 -3.5 -0.8 3.0 2.3 3.9 2.7 R Western Wood-Pewee 38 -3.2 -5.3 -0.9 0.7 0.4 1.1 4.4 Q Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 10 10.1 4.2 17.7 0.1 0.0 0.3 13.5 P Alder Flycatcher 85 -1.5 -2.7 -0.4 24.9 19.3 32.2 2.3 R Least Flycatcher 8 -3.3 -13.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 P Hammond's Flycatcher 31 1.2 -1.5 3.8 1.7 1.1 2.7 5.3 P Pacific-slope Flycatcher 16 1.6 -0.2 3.6 21.5 12.5 36.3 3.7 Q Say's Phoebe 21 0.6 -3.5 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 8.2 P Northern Shrike 14 -2.1 -6.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 P * Warbling Vireo 6 4.3 0.9 8.0 0.5 0.2 0.9 7.1 P Gray Jay 58 1.4 -0.3 3.4 9.3 6.9 12.6 3.6 Q Steller's Jay 19 -1.9 -3.7 -0.4 1.1 0.8 1.7 3.3 Q Black-billed Magpie 38 1.2 -1.2 3.8 2.0 1.3 3.3 4.9 Q Northwestern Crow 23 2.0 0.1 4.3 4.2 2.5 8.1 4.2 Q Common Raven 92 1.9 0.4 3.6 4.5 3.6 5.7 3.2 Q Horned Lark 3 -7.6 -21.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 29.0 P Tree Swallow 73 -2.9 -5.0 -0.6 2.3 1.6 3.3 4.3 Q Violet-green Swallow 53 -3.9 -6.7 -1.5 2.3 1.4 3.9 5.3 P Bank Swallow 60 -5.9 -9.3 -2.5 27.4 16.0 49.6 6.8 P Cliff Swallow 40 -7.0 -10.6 -3.2 11.2 6.0 20.9 7.4 P Barn Swallow 14 -6.1 -9.2 -3.2 0.5 0.3 0.9 6.0 P Black-capped Chickadee 59 -0.5 -2.3 1.8 1.3 1.0 1.8 4.1 Q Chestnut-backed Chickadee 18 0.1 -1.7 2.1 24.1 14.9 41.0 3.8 Q Boreal Chickadee 54 1.4 -0.7 4.0 1.3 0.9 1.8 4.7 Q Red-breasted Nuthatch 29 1.5 -2.4 5.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 7.9 P Brown Creeper 27 -0.1 -3.6 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 7.2 P Pacific Wren 19 0.5 -1.8 3.9 19.9 12.5 58.6 5.7 P American Dipper 11 -1.3 -5.4 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 9.3 P Golden-crowned Kinglet 36 -0.8 -3.4 1.8 3.5 2.0 10.1 5.2 P Ruby-crowned Kinglet 74 0.9 -0.5 2.3 21.4 16.1 29.1 2.8 R Arctic Warbler 28 -5.0 -8.5 -1.1 12.3 4.7 53.6 7.5 P * Bluethroat 7 -6.7 -16.0 5.6 0.2 0.1 0.9 21.5 P * Northern Wheatear 4 3.3 -5.2 12.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 17.7 P * Townsend's Solitaire 15 1.7 -1.8 5.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 7.5 P Gray-cheeked Thrush 71 -2.6 -4.6 -0.5 13.3 8.6 22.9 4.2 Q * Swainson's Thrush 76 0.7 -0.2 1.7 74.1 58.7 95.6 1.9 R Hermit Thrush 73 0.9 -0.2 2.0 15.0 11.2 19.9 2.2 R American Robin 90 1.0 0.3 1.7 19.3 16.9 22.0 1.4 R Varied Thrush 81 -0.7 -1.7 0.3 47.6 35.8 66.2 1.9 R European Starling 4 -2.5 -10.5 5.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 15.8 P

37

2.5% 97.5% 2.5% 97.5% Half- Credibility Common Name N Trend CI CI RA CI RA CI RA Width Score New Eastern Yellow Wagtail 12 -4.8 -9.0 -0.7 6.3 3.0 20.4 8.2 P * American Pipit 12 1.0 -7.8 10.6 0.6 0.2 3.3 18.3 P * Bohemian Waxwing 40 -0.6 -4.5 4.5 1.0 0.5 1.9 9.0 P * Cedar Waxwing 5 4.6 -16.0 29.4 1.5 0.4 6.3 45.4 P Lapland Longspur 19 0.0 -4.3 4.2 39.6 12.5 241.5 8.5 P * Northern Waterthrush 71 0.2 -1.2 1.7 5.3 4.1 7.0 2.9 R Tennessee Warbler 6 -0.2 -6.6 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.7 P Orange-crowned Warbler 85 -0.2 -1.4 1.1 33.2 25.8 43.4 2.5 R MacGillivray's Warbler 9 -3.6 -11.0 3.2 0.5 0.2 1.3 14.1 P Common Yellowthroat 18 1.7 -0.9 5.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.0 P American Redstart 3 5.2 -2.2 19.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 21.5 P Yellow Warbler 91 1.5 0.0 3.2 8.5 6.3 12.0 3.2 Q Blackpoll Warbler 60 -3.6 -5.3 -1.9 6.3 4.2 9.9 3.4 Q Yellow-rumped Warbler 76 1.8 0.1 3.8 31.6 24.1 42.0 3.7 Q Townsend's Warbler 47 2.8 1.2 4.4 12.5 7.7 20.9 3.2 Q Wilson's Warbler 90 -0.3 -1.5 1.2 21.3 16.0 30.3 2.8 R American Tree Sparrow 47 -0.7 -3.3 2.4 57.2 24.4 209.1 5.7 P * Chipping Sparrow 27 7.7 3.7 12.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 8.3 P Savannah Sparrow 83 -0.6 -2.2 0.9 30.5 19.4 49.2 3.1 Q Fox Sparrow 92 2.5 1.2 3.7 39.1 28.9 55.4 2.5 R Song Sparrow 37 -0.8 -3.1 1.8 0.5 0.4 0.7 4.9 Q Lincoln's Sparrow 73 1.7 0.1 3.4 6.4 4.8 8.8 3.3 Q White-crowned Sparrow 75 -0.7 -2.3 1.2 94.2 64.7 145.3 3.5 Q Golden-crowned Sparrow 35 -1.6 -3.2 0.3 42.7 18.1 98.9 3.5 Q * Dark-eyed Junco 76 -0.2 -1.4 1.0 55.0 43.5 70.4 2.4 R Western Tanager 7 1.3 -2.3 5.9 0.3 0.2 0.8 8.2 P Red-winged Blackbird 13 -1.7 -4.9 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 6.1 P Rusty Blackbird 37 -0.8 -3.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 1.1 6.9 P Pine Grosbeak 54 -0.9 -3.6 2.5 0.8 0.5 1.2 6.0 P Red Crossbill 20 9.5 0.9 19.8 4.1 1.3 15.9 18.9 P White-winged Crossbill 61 9.9 3.2 17.1 13.8 5.2 37.7 13.9 P Common Redpoll 76 -2.6 -4.8 -0.2 32.1 22.6 48.1 4.6 Q * Hoary Redpoll 6 25.2 8.3 51.7 0.2 0.1 10.0 43.4 P * Pine Siskin 46 -3.2 -6.8 0.6 7.2 4.1 13.0 7.3 P

a The "Yellow-breasted" Sapsucker complex results from the lumping of data from currently recognized species, that overlap in distribution, that were not recognized as distinct species when the BBS survey began.

38

Table 2. Comparisons of annual percent change (% yr−1) in populations of 31 species of shorebirds and landbirds from roadside Breeding Bird Surveys and off-road Alaska Landbird Monitoring Surveys in 2 Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) of Alaska, USA (2003–2015), based on independent hierarchical models (caption and table taken from Handel and Sauer 2017:Table 1). For each species, the following is presented: sample size (number of routes surveyed n) and the median and 95% credible intervals (CIs) for the annual percent change; boldface font indicates those values for which 95% CIs did not overlap zero (red=decline, blue=increase). Trends are presented only for species recorded on ≥14 routes in a region, unless 95% CIs were precise enough to detect trend of 5% yr−1 (Sauer et al. 2003). Species noted with an asterisk (*) are represented by different subspecies in the 2 BCRs in Alaska (Gibson and Withrow 2015), but not all had samples sufficient for comparative analysis.

Northwestern Interior Forest BCR Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR Roadside Off-road Roadside Off-road

Species n median 2.5% 97.5% n median 2.5% 97.5% n median 2.5% 97.5% n median 2.5% 97.5% Rufous Hummingbird 19 0.8 -2.2 3.3 24 -7.5 -13.5 -3.2 Wilson’s Snipe 44 -0.6 -3.1 1.6 24 -6.5 -12.6 1.8 Lesser Yellowlegs 32 -5.3 -8.5 -2.2 17 -9.2 -15.0 -0.6 Red-breasted Sapsucker 16 3.3 -3.0 10.3 18 10.2 6.6 14.4 Olive-sided Flycatcher 39 -2.8 -5.3 -0.3 19 -17.9 -25.1 -8.8 16 -3.4 -7.4 -0.7 Western Wood-pewee* 24 -3.8 -7.6 2.3 17 8.5 -4.0 26.4 Alder Flycatcher 46 -1.8 -3.9 0.1 35 2.1 -2.1 6.2 19 -0.7 -5.3 4.0 Pacific-slope Flycatcher 15 2.7 0.3 6.1 19 0.3 -1.8 3.0 Tree Swallow 35 -4.6 -10.3 1.6 14 -0.5 -10.9 22.1 Black-capped Chickadee 37 -1.5 -5.6 2.9 20 1.6 -4.3 7.9 Chestnut-backed Chickadee 19 -0.4 -4.2 2.8 24 2.4 -1.9 7.1 Boreal Chickadee 42 0.2 -4.2 4.7 27 -1.6 -8.1 4.9 Pacific Wren 18 -0.5 -3.1 2.4 24 -0.7 -2.7 1.5 Golden-crowned Kinglet* 22 -1.9 -7.5 4.1 21 -5.4 -9.2 -1.5 Ruby-crowned Kinglet* 45 -3.6 -6.7 -0.6 34 1.4 -2.9 4.4 22 -3.0 -6.8 0.3 22 -2.1 -4.4 0.8 Swainson’s Thrush* 45 1.7 0.0 3.7 36 3.1 0.5 5.5 22 1.3 -0.9 3.5 13 -2.2 -6.0 2.1 Hermit Thrush* 37 2.7 -1.5 7.0 31 -5.3 -10.7 0.7 23 0.4 -1.4 2.3 28 2.9 0.7 5.4 American Robin* 46 1.3 -0.2 2.9 38 3.1 0.9 5.4 23 3.1 0.8 5.6 22 -3.5 -7.9 0.5 Varied Thrush* 45 0.6 -2.4 3.6 26 3.0 -2.5 8.6 23 -0.4 -2.8 2.1 27 0.5 -1.6 2.4 Orange-crowned Warbler* 44 -2.9 -5.4 -0.3 43 1.8 -1.1 5.1 23 -1.1 -3.2 2.2 28 6.0 3.5 8.9 Yellow Warbler* 45 6.6 2.8 10.8 31 7.5 2.3 15.8 23 0.4 -3.0 3.0 15 3.2 -5.6 11.0 Blackpoll Warbler 35 -5.4 -9.3 -0.5 14 10.4 -8.9 23.3 Yellow-rumped Warbler* 46 -0.7 -3.0 1.7 36 -0.3 -3.0 2.5 20 0.5 -2.0 2.7 15 -6.2 -11.0 -1.3 Townsend’s Warbler 23 -2.3 -7.0 2.1 21 4.2 1.3 7.2 20 5.3 3.0 8.5 Wilson’s Warbler 46 -4.5 -6.6 -2.4 39 -3.7 -8.2 0.1 22 0.3 -2.5 3.4 26 2.0 -0.4 4.9 Savannah Sparrow 38 -5.0 -7.6 -2.5 33 4.0 -0.8 8.7 Fox Sparrow* 46 -0.6 -3.3 1.7 35 7.6 3.2 11.7 23 2.0 0.2 3.9 13 -2.0 -6.2 2.3 Lincoln’s Sparrow* 43 3.8 0.6 7.2 32 5.8 2.4 10.5 21 0.0 -2.7 4.0 18 2.1 -0.4 4.8 White-crowned Sparrow* 46 -3.0 -5.2 -0.7 38 -2.2 -5.0 0.7 Dark-eyed Junco* 46 0.3 -1.6 2.3 41 0.6 -1.4 2.8 23 -0.2 -2.6 2.4 24 3.6 0.2 7.3 Rusty Blackbird 20 1.3 -3.9 8.9 14 6.5 -1.6 16.5

39

(ALASKA-WIDE) HUNTER HARVESTED GROUSE AND PTARMIGAN WING COLLECTION PROGRAM, ALASKA, 2017 UPDATE

Rick Merizon and Cameron Carroll, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Since 2011, the statewide Small Game Program within the ADF&G has been collecting grouse and ptarmigan wings and tails from hunter harvested birds. This is a voluntary program that through 6 hunting seasons (2011/12 - 2016/17) has received samples from over 250 hunters statewide. During the 2016 regulatory year (RY; July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) hunters provided wings from 84 ruffed, 290 spruce, 88 sharp-tailed, and 59 sooty grouse in addition to 331 willow, 50 rock, and 43 white-tailed ptarmigan wings statewide (R. Merizon pers. communication). Samples were collected from 17 of the 26 game management units statewide including the Alaska Peninsula, Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast Alaska, and most of the road system from the Dalton Highway to Homer.

These samples allow managers to better understand the harvest composition of exploited populations of tetraonids. Specifically, they allow an estimation of harvest composition, harvest distribution and timing, and juvenile production. This program will continue and is a permanent portion of the ADF&G Small Game Program. The program provides free wing envelopes and free return options to encourage participation. Envelopes are available either through direct mailing or at all ADF&G offices. Through November 2017 hunters have provided approximately 650 samples statewide for the 2017-2018 season.

Contact. Richard A. Merizon, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1800 Glenn Hwy, Suite 2, Palmer, AK 99645. Phone: 907.746.6333; e-mail: richard.merizon@alaska; Cameron Carroll, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1300 College road, Fairbanks, AK. 99701. Phone: 907.459.7237; e-mail: cameron.carroll@alaska.gov

(ALASKA-WIDE) INVESTIGATION OF A NOVEL VIRUS ASSOCIATED WITH BEAK DEFORMITIES IN

ALASKAN BIRDS

Colleen M. Handel, Caroline Van Hemert, Lisa M. Pajot, and Rachel M. Richardson, USGS Alaska Science Center; Maxine Zylberberg and Joseph L. DeRisi, University of California San Francisco

Beginning in the late 1990s, a high prevalence of beak deformities has been observed in Black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), Northwestern Crows (Corvus caurinus), and other resident species in Alaska. This disease, called avian keratin disorder (AKD), has been recently documented across other parts of North America and Europe, suggesting possible geographic spread. To date, our research has focused on (1) determining the cause of AKD, (2) monitoring the temporal and spatial occurrence of this disorder, and (3) determining the population-level consequences of beak deformities in terms of reproduction and survival. In 2016, using next generation sequencing, we identified a novel picornavirus (Poecivirus) in beak tissues of Black-capped Chickadees with AKD (Zylberberg et al. 2016). We detected this virus in 100% of birds with beak deformities; by comparison, the virus was present in only 20% of birds with apparently normal beaks. Subsequently, we sampled a larger number of chickadees from our field sites in south-central Alaska and confirmed a strong association between Poecivirus and beak deformities. We have also detected a closely related virus in other species from Alaska with beak deformities, providing further evidence for Poecivirus as a leading candidate cause of AKD. Additional studies are currently underway to confirm that Poecivirus is the etiological agent of AKD, determine whether the virus is present outside of Alaska, and assess how it may be transmitted among wild birds. We are conducting a captive experiment to determine whether exposure to Poecivirus is sufficient to cause AKD in naïve birds. Additionally, we are testing birds with morphologically similar beak deformities from other locations and of other species to determine if AKD is responsible for a

40

multispecies, cross-continental epizootic. A long-term mark-recapture study is also ongoing to monitor prevalence of the disorder in chickadees in south-central Alaska and to quantify effects on survival.

Contact. Colleen Handel or Caroline Van Hemert, USGS Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508. Phone: 907-786-7181, 907-786-7167. Email: cmhandel@usgs.gov, cvanhemert@usgs.gov

(RANGE-WIDE) A FULL-ANNUAL CYCLE MODEL TO UNDERSTAND FACTORS LIMITING RUSTY

BLACKBIRD POPULATIONS

Clark Rushing1,2, Steve Matsuoka3, Luke Powell2,4 and various members of the International Rusty Blackbird Working Group1USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; 2Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center; 3USGS Alaska Science Center; 4University of Glasgow

The Rusty Blackbird has lost 90% of its global population since 1970 and is projected to lose another 50% in the next 19 years (Rosenberg et al. 2016). Since 2005, researchers with the International Rusty Blackbird Working Group (Working Group, rustyblackbird.org) have collaborated on a variety of studies on breeding and wintering populations to understand the species’ resource requirements, limiting factors, and population flyway structure. This collective effort has filled major information gaps on Rusty Blackbird ecology and natural history requirements; however, identifying the causes of its steep decline has remained elusive. A review of the existing information on the species recommended that the various demographic data collected across the annual cycle should be integrated into a population matrix model of annual population growth to (1) better understand when and where populations are most limited and (2) identify environmental drivers of these limitations (Greenberg and Matsuoka 2010).

In 2016, the Working Group began working in earnest on a full-annual cycle model. We compiled into a centralized database all of the existing data on the species’ abundance, fecundity, and survival (mark-recapture and telemetry) and then successfully fit these data to a preliminary Bayesian integrated population model (IPM, Schaub and Abadi 2011, Kéry and Schaub 2012) adapted from a model developed for declining Wood Thrush (Rushing et al. unpublished data). We are now finalizing this model which: Estimates demographic rates (fecundity, season- and age-specific survival) separately for western

versus eastern flyways, the former linking breeding and wintering data between Alaska and Mississippi, the latter New England to South Carolina/Georgia.

Partitions first year and adult annual survival into breeding, winter, and latent spring and autumn migration periods.

Compares the proportional contributions of the individual demographic parameters (n = 10 parameters) to population growth, thereby identifying demographic drivers of population limitation separately for each flyway.

Contact. Steve Matsuoka, USGS Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508. Phone: (907)786-7075; E-mail: smatsuoka@usgs.gov

Literature cited Greenberg, R., and S. M. Matsuoka. 2010. Rusty Blackbird: mysteries of a species in decline. Condor 112:770–777. Kéry, M., and M. Schaub. 2012. Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS. A Hierarchical Perspective, 1st

ed. Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. Rosenberg, K. V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J.

Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton,

41

T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee.

Schaub, M., and F. Abadi. 2011. Integrated population models: a novel analysis framework for deeper insights into population dynamics. Journal of Ornithology 151 (Supplement 1):227–237.

(BOREAL NORTH AMERICA) UPDATE FROM THE BOREAL AVIAN MODELLING PROJECT

Nicole Barker on behalf of the BAM Team, Boreal Avian Modelling Project

BACKGROUND

The Boreal Avian Modelling (BAM) Project was founded in 2005 to address critical knowledge gaps challenging the management and conservation of boreal birds in Canada (Cumming et al. 2010). BAM develops, distributes, and applies statistical models of avian populations and the impacts of human activity on boreal bird species. Our work draws upon a powerful database created through a large initial investment in assembling and harmonizing data from individual research and monitoring efforts conducted in the Canadian and US boreal & hemi-boreal forest (Sólymos et al. 2013, Barker et al. 2015). As of 2015, BAM’s Avian Database included data from over 210,000 point-count locations across North America’s boreal forest region (Barker et al. 2015).

The BAM Project Team is made up of academic researchers, government scientists, project staff, and graduate students. BAM collaborates with federal and provincial governments, academics, industry, and non-governmental organizations with interests in the development and application of science for bird conservation and management. Our research products are applied to many aspects of boreal bird management and conservation, including migratory bird monitoring, population estimation, determination of habitat requirements, population assessment and recovery planning for species at risk, environmental assessment, identification of priority wildlife areas, protected areas design, and land-use planning.

2017 RESEARCH UPDATE

BAM’s research primarily contributes to conservation and management of boreal birds in two ways: 1) by providing the best available information; and 2) by advancing the theoretical foundations of research underpinning conservation and management within the boreal region. Provision of information: Conservation of species is often reactive and opportunistic. Managers must

respond, assess, and triage based on available information. BAM strives to ensure the best information is available to facilitate reactive decision-making.

Theoretical foundations: Simultaneously, BAM also proactively conducts research on species ecology, habitats, and human impacts, with intent to continually improve the intellectual standard, theoretical basis, and rigour of our products and advice.

Throughout 2017, BAM led or contributed to projects that aimed to: Quantify how species’ detectability is constrained by phylogeny or affected by species’ traits

(Sólymos et al. 2018); Evaluate time-removal methods for correcting for species’ detectability in terms of data needs and

model complexity (Sólymos et al. In review); Evaluate methods for integrating Autonomous Recording Unit data with human point counts into

statistical analyses (Van Wilgenburg et al. 2017, Yip et al. 2017); Systematically compare alternative methods of estimating population size from avian point count data

with a goal of standardizing the approach; Evaluate how reliably local-scale models of energy sector impacts predict avian density at larger

scales (Leston et al. In preparation);

42

Automatically summarize known species’ occurrences to delineate species' northern ranges (led by Canadian Wildlife Service);

Systematically quantify how species’ habitat associations vary regionally; Identify breeding and non-breeding ground correlates of inter-annual variation in species abundance

and identify putative migratory connections between sites used throughout the annual cycle (Stralberg et al. In preparation);

Estimate spatial variation in density, population size, and trend for Canada Warbler at national extent (Haché et al. In preparation) by applying methods used previously to model avian density at provincial extent (Ball et al. 2016);

Quantify impacts of land-use change on birds at national extent (Suárez-Esteban et al. In preparation);

Attribute variation in bird abundances to direct and indirect impacts of different land-use agents in Alberta;

Quantify how the boreal songbird community has responded to 23 years of forest regeneration after experimental harvesting (Leston et al. In review);

Project boreal bird responses to forecasted landscape changes caused by climate change and harvest in Alberta (led by ECCC and NRCAN);

Quantify cumulative effects of industrial development on birds using three different methods, to establish upper and lower limits of predicted impacts of energy sector development on songbird populations in the Alberta Oilsands (Leston et al. In preparation);

Identify Zones of Interest for migratory birds in the boreal (Stralberg et al. In review); Identify opportunities for conservation and habitat management for the Canada Warbler in the

Atlantic Northern Forest of Canada (co-led by High Branch Conservation Services and BAM Team Members; Westwood et al. In preparation);

Quantify and map bird density in interior BC to evaluate a risk management tool; Write a guide to help academics make their work directly applicable to management and conservation

of boreal birds (Westwood et al. In preparation); Produce science and recommendations regarding identification of critical habitat for species with low

densities across their broad breeding (Dénes et al. In preparation).

2017 PARTNERSHIP AND OUTREACH UPDATE

Conservation of Boreal Birds special issue of Avian Conservation & Ecology: In July 2016 BAM co-hosted a workshop at the North American Congress for Conservation Biology COBB dedicated to improving conservation of boreal birds through increased understanding of interactions among policy, science, and decision-making. Since that time, we have organized a special issue of the journal Avian Conservation & Ecology. This issue will include several solicited review papers and as a whole will review the current state of knowledge regarding conservation of North American boreal birds and provide background to scientists looking to improve applicability of their research.

Birds and Forestry Workshop: In October 2017, BAM co-hosted a workshop with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. The workshop goals were to: (1) Define a path to realize the conservation potential of managed forest lands for boreal birds; (2) Improve awareness of forest industry management needs and science capacity; (3) Collaboratively identify complementary research interests, capacities, and priorities; and (4) Outline explicit research projects and explore next steps for collaboration. Thirty-nine participants attended the 2-day workshop, including 13 BAM Team Members. Our attendees represented 27 different academic, industry, governmental, or non-governmental institutions across the country. Active discussions and break-out groups resulted in a wealth of suggestions to help shape future collaborative initiatives.

43

Population estimation with Partners in Flight: Given BAM’s current focus on estimating national population sizes of boreal birds, we reconnected with Partners in Flight to discuss ways of capitalizing on our respective strengths and avoid duplication of efforts. We presented the BAM approach during the 2017 in-person PIF Science Committee meeting and continue discussions through the Population Estimation sub-group.

Informing conservation planning for species at risk in the Moose Cree First Nation homelands: BAM is working with the Moose Cree First Nation (MCFN), Nature Canada, and the Wildlands League to build habitat models, inform sampling, and incorporate habitat models into the MCFN’s planning process.

Website update and data product availability: The BAM website (www.borealbirds.ca) includes information on avian breeding densities by habitat type, maps of avian distribution, and recommendations on conducting point-count surveys. We are in progress of upgrading our website with a focus on conveying BAM’s overall goals, specific projects, and data products. We recently decommissioned our DataBasin page (http://borealbirds.databasin.org), and are looking into an option that can be better integrated with our future website.

THE BAM TEAM

In 2017, our team grew by 7 with the addition of 3 postdoctoral fellows and 4 PhD students. BAM now includes the following individuals: Steering Committee: Erin Bayne (U.Alberta), Steve Cumming (U.Laval), Fiona Schmiegelow

(U.Alberta), and Samantha Song (ECCC-CWS). Staff: Nicole Barker (Coordinating Scientist, U.Alberta), Péter Sólymos (Statistical Ecologist,

U.Alberta), Diana Stralberg (Ecologist, U.Alberta), Mélina Houle (Spatial Database Manager, U.Laval), and Trish Fontaine (Avian Database Manager, U.Alberta).

Post-doctoral fellows and students: Alberto Suarez-Esteban (U.Alberta), Lionel Leston (U.Alberta), Francisco Dénes (U.Alberta), Andy Crosby (U.Alberta), Tati Micheletti (UBC), Tara Stehelin (U.Alberta), Brendan Casey (U.Alberta), Antoine Adde (U.Laval), Isolde Lane Shaw (U.Laval), and Ana Raymundo (U.Laval).

Contributing Scientists: Samuel Haché (ECCC-CWS), Lisa Mahon (ECCC-CWS), Steve Matsuoka (USGS), Steve Van Wilgenburg (ECCC-CWS), Alana Westwood (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative & Dalhousie University), and Judith Toms (ECCC-CWS).

Technical Committee. Marcel Darveau (DUC), André Desrochers (U.Laval), Pierre Drapeau (UQAM), Charles Francis (ECCC-CWS), Colleen Handel (USGS), Keith Hobson (UWO), Craig Machtans (ECCC-CWS), Julienne Morissette (DUC), Gerald Niemi (U.Minnesota), Rob Rempel (OMNRF), Stuart Slattery (IWWR), Phil Taylor (BSC), Lisa Venier (CFS), Pierre Vernier (U.Alberta), and Marc-André Villard (U.Moncton).

Contact. Nicole Barker, University of Alberta, 751 General Services Building, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2H1, E-mail: nbarker@ualberta.ca

Literature cited Barker, N. K. S., P. C. Fontaine, S. G. Cumming, D. Stralberg, A. Westwood, E. M. Bayne, P. Sólymos, F. K. A.

Schmiegelow, S. J. Song, and D. J. Rugg. 2015. Ecological monitoring through harmonizing existing data: Lessons from the boreal avian modelling project: Data Management of the BAM Project. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:480–487.

Cumming, S. G., K. L. Lefevre, E. Bayne, T. Fontaine, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and S. J. Song. 2010. Toward Conservation of Canada’s Boreal Forest Avifauna: Design and Application of Ecological Models at Continental Extents. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5.

44

______________________________________________________________________________

Dénes, F., N. K. S. Barker, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, K. St-Laurent, A. R. Westwood, S. Haché, S. J. Song, P. Sólymos, and D. Stralberg. In preparation. Critical habitat identification for boreal birds in Canada: challenges, current practices, and a conceptual framework. Avian Conservation and Ecology.

Haché, S., P. Sólymos, T. Fontaine, D. Stralberg, N. K. S. Barker, A. Suárez-Esteban, A. R. Westwood, F. Dénes, E. M. Bayne, S. G. Cumming, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and S. J. Song. In preparation. Breeding density and population trend of a widely-distributed neotropical migratory songbird, the Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis). Journal of Applied Ecology.

Leston, L., E. M. Bayne, C. L. Mahon, P. Sólymos, J. R. Ball, J. Schieck, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and S. J. Song. In preparation. Assessing the ability of local-scale models to predict cumulative effects on boreal birds at landscape scales. Condor.

Leston, L., E. M. Bayne, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. In review. Long-term changes in boreal forest bird occupancy within regenerating units. Forest Ecology and Management.

Leston, L., E. M. Bayne, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, C. L. Mahon, S. J. Song, J. R. Ball, J. D. Toms, and P. Sólymos. In preparation. Comparing and contrasting different assessments of cumulative forestry and energy sector effects on boreal birds. Avian Conservation and Ecology.

Sólymos, P., S. M. Matsuoka, E. M. Bayne, S. R. Lele, P. Fontaine, S. G. Cumming, D. Stralberg, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and S. J. Song. 2013. Calibrating indices of avian density from non-standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:1047–1058.

Sólymos, P., S. M. Matsuoka, S. G. Cumming, D. Stralberg, P. Fontaine, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, S. J. Song, and E. M. Bayne. In review. Evaluating time-removal models for estimating availability of boreal birds during point-count surveys: sample size requirements and model complexity. Condor.

Sólymos, P., S. M. Matsuoka, D. Stralberg, N. K. S. Barker, and E. M. Bayne. 2018. Phylogeny and species traits predict bird detectability. Ecography:early view.

Stralberg, D., A. Camfield, M. Carlson, C. Lauzon, A. Westwood, N. K. S. Barker, S. J. Song, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. In review. Which half? Strategies for identifying priority areas for passerine conservation in Canada’s boreal forest. Avian Conservation and Ecology.

Stralberg, D., S. L. Van Wilgenburg, S. Haché, J. D. Toms, P. Sólymos, E. M. Bayne, S. G. Cumming, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. In preparation. Signals of breeding and wintering weather and forest change in boreal bird population fluctuations. Condor.

Suárez-Esteban, A., S. G. Cumming, E. M. Bayne, S. J. Song, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. In preparation. The rise of industrial development, the fall of boreal songbirds. Avian Conservation and Ecology.

Van Wilgenburg, S., P. Sólymos, K. Kardynal, and M. Frey. 2017. Paired sampling standardizes point count data from humans and acoustic recorders. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12.

Westwood, A. R., N. K. S. Barker, A. Camfield, F. Dénes, L. McBlane, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, J. I. Simpson, S. M. Slattery, D. J. H. Sleep, R. Vallender, J. Wells, and D. M. Whitaker. In preparation. The conservation of breeding birds in the boreal forest of Canada: A review of key players and mechanisms. Avian Conservation and Ecology.

Westwood, A. R., D. Lambert, L. Reitsma, and D. Stralberg. In preparation. Bridging the research-management divide: Collaboratively pairing spatial modelling with on-the-ground guidelines to support implementation of recovery action for the Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis). Avian Conservation and Ecology.

Yip, D., L. Leston, E. Bayne, P. Sólymos, and A. Grover. 2017. Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12.

45

APPENDIX. LANDBIRD PUBLICATIONS (2016–EARLY 2018) RELEVANT TO ALASKA AND

ADJACENT CANADA

DeCicco, L. H., D. D. Gibson, T. G. Tobish, Jr., S. C. Heinl, N. R. Hajdukovich, J. A. Johnson, and C. W. Wright. 2017. Migrant birds of Middleton Island and the Gulf of Alaska. Western Birds, in press.

DeCicco, L. H., D. Shutler, and S. Mockford. 2017. Morphological differences between Neartic and Palearctic Gray-headed Chickadees. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 129:171-175.

Doyle, K. M., T. E. Katzner, G. W. Roemer, J. W. Cain, III, B. A. Millsap, C. L. McIntyre, S. A. Sonsthagen, N. B. Fernandez, M. Wheeler, Z. Bulut, P. H. Bloom and J. A. DeWoody. 2016. Genetic structure and viability selection in the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), a vagile raptor with a Holarctic distribution. Conservation Genetics 17:1307-1322.

Haché, S., E. M. Bayne, M. A. Villard, H. Proctor, C. S. Davis, D. Stralberg, et al. 2017. Phylogeography of a migratory songbird across its Canadian breeding range: Implications for conservation units. Ecology and Evolution 7:6078-6088.

Handel, C. M., and J. R. Sauer. 2017. Combined analysis of roadside and off-road breeding bird survey data to assess population change in Alaska. Condor 119(3):557-575.

Hunt, A. R., E. M. Bayne, and S. Haché. 2017. Forestry and conspecifics influence Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis) habitat use and reproductive activity in boreal Alberta, Canada. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 119:832-847.

Johnson, J. A., T. L. Booms, L. H. DeCicco, and D. C. Douglas. 2017. Seasonal movements of the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) in western North America as revealed by satellite telemetry. Journal of Raptor Research 51:115-128.

Mahon, C. L., G. Holloway, P. Sólymos, S. G. Cumming, E. M. Bayne, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and S. J. Song. 2016. Community structure and niche characteristics of upland and lowland western boreal birds at multiple spatial scales. Forest Ecology and Management 361:99-116.

Marques, T. A., L. Thomas, M. Ké:ry, S. T. Buckland, D. L. Borchers, E. A. Rexstad, R. M. Fewster, D. I. MacKenzie, J. A. Royle, G. Guillera-Arroita, C. M. Handel, D. C. Pavlacky, Jr., and R. J. Camp. 2017. Model-based approaches to deal with detectability: a comment on Hutto (2016a). Ecological Applications 27:1694-1698.

McDermott, M. T. 2017. Arthropod communities and passerine diet: effects of shrub expansion in western Alaska. M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

McIntyre, C. L., and S. B. Lewis. 2016. Observations of migrating Golden Eagles in eastern interior Alaska offer insights on population size and migration monitoring. Journal of Raptor Research 50:254-264.

Mizel, J. D., J. H. Schmidt, and M. S. Lindberg. 2018. Accommodating temporary emigration in spatial distance sampling models. Journal of Applied Ecology, in press.

Mizel, J. D., J. H. Schmidt, C. L. McIntyre, and M. S. Lindberg. 2017. Subarctic-breeding passerines exhibit phenological resilience to extreme spring conditions. Ecosphere 8(2):e01680.

Mizel, J. D., J. H. Schmidt, C. L. Mcintyre, and C. A. Roland. 2016. Rapidly shifting elevational distributions of passerine species parallel vegetation change in the subarctic. Ecosphere 7(3):e01264.

Nelson, A. R., R. L. Cormier, D. L. Humple, J. C. Scullen, R. Sehgal, and N. E. Seavy. 2016. Migration patterns of San Francisco Bay Area Hermit Thrushes differ across a fine spatial scale. Animal Migration 3:1-13.

Nickens, T. E. 2016. What one magnificent predator can show us about the Arctic’s future. Audubon Magazine. January-February edition.

Pankratz, R., S. Hache, P. Sólymos, and E. Bayne. 2017. Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12(2):18.

Robinson, B. W., A. Bowman, L. H. DeCicco, and J. Wright. 2017. First breeding record of the Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) in Alaska. Western Birds 48:145-147.

Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, K. L. Pardiek, D. J. Ziolkowski, and W. A. Link. 2017. Expanding the North American Breeding Bird Survey analysis to include additional species and regions. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8:154-172.

Schmidt, J. H., C. L. McIntyre, C. A. Roland, M. C. MacCluskie, and M. J. Flamme. 2018. Bottom-up processes drive reproductive success in an apex predator. Ecology and Evolution 8:1833-1841.

Smith, M. M., C. R. Van Hemert, and R. Merizon. 2016. Haemosporidian parasite infections in grouse and ptarmigan: Prevalence and genetic diversity of blood parasites in resident Alaskan birds. International Journal of Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 5(3):229-239.

46

Sólymos, P., S. M. Matsuoka, D. Stralberg, N. Barker, and E. M. Bayne. 2018. Phylogeny and species traits predict songbird detectability. Ecography. doi: 10.1111/ecog.03415

Stralberg, D., S. M. Matsuoka, C. M. Handel, E. M. Bayne, F. K. A. Schmiegelow, and A. Hamman. 2017. Biogeography of boreal passerine range dynamics in western North America: past, present, and future. Ecography 40:1050-1066.

Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert, C. L. McIntyre and J. L. Brown. 2017. Coming to terms about describing golden eagle reproduction. Journal of Raptor Research 51:378-390.

Thompson, S. J., C. M. Handel, and L. B. McNew. 2017. Autonomous acoustic recorders reveal complex patterns in avian detection probability. Journal of Wildlife Management 81(7):1228-1241.

Thompson, S. J., C. M. Handel, R. M. Richardson, and L. B. McNew. 2016. When winners become losers: Predicted nonlinear responses of arctic birds to increasing woody vegetation. PLoS One 11(11):e0164755.

Wilkinson, L. C., C. M. Handel, C. R. Van Hemert, C. Loiseau, and R. N. M. Sehgal. 2016. Avian malaria in a boreal resident species: long-term temporal variability, and increased prevalence in birds with avian keratin disorder. International Journal of Parasitology 46(4):281-290.

Van Hemert, C. R. and C. M. Handel. 2016. Elements in whole blood of Northwestern Crows (Corvus caurinus) in Alaska: No evidence for an association with beak deformities. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52(3):713-718.

Van Hemert, C. R. and C. M. Handel. 2016. Blood serum chemistry of wild Alaskan Black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) with Avian Keratin Disorder. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52(4):927-930.

Zylberberg, M., C. R. Van Hemert, J. P. Dumbacher, C. M. Handel, T. Tihan, and J. L. DeRisi. 2016. Novel picornavirus associated with avian keratin disorder in Alaskan birds. mBio 7(4):e00874-16.

47