Assessing wetland habitat quality for Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) in Colorado Lindsey PowerSenior Honor’s thesis

Outline

Introduction About the study area and Sandhill Cranes Methods Results Discussion

Introduction

Graduating senior Fish, wildlife and conservation biology major Influential classes: Ornithology and Natural resource law and policy

Lower South Platte River Basin Northeastern CO Front Range and eastern plains Habitats used by Sandhill cranes:

Emergent Marsh Playa Sandbar River channel Wet meadow Recharge pond/moist soil unit

Lemly, J and Gilligan, L. 2015. Wetlands of the Lower South Platte River Basin: Extent, condition and habitat quality. CNHP

Sandhill cranes CPW priority species: Greater Sandhill

Crane Stopover on Central Flyway in fall and

spring Most found on Central Platte River in

Nebraska Staging habitat

Shallow water, broad channels, sparse vegetation, close to feeding

Shallow water, agriculture fields

Methods: Reviewing habitat indices Thresholds – review, revise

Roosting index: Modified herb cover, patch width, dominant veg Added herb height, river channel, sandbar; removed water cover emergent Feeding index: dominant veg, water depth, herb height

Version 2

SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding DVCDominant Vegetation Category Like "[CEF]" GH Like "[ABDIJKL]" M, P 1.00

A lot of sites out of range for a couple variables.

SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding HCV Herb Cover >= 80 Between 60 And 79.99 Between 30 And 59.99 < 30 0.95

SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding WPDAWater Predominant Depth Actual < = 5 Between 5.01 And 35 Between 35.01 And 50 > 50 0.95

SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding HHT Herb Height Class = 1 = 2 = 3 > 3 0.90

SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding LVSACRLandscape Value Model for Sandhill Cranes >= 66 Between 33 And 65.99 > 33 1.00

Methods: Data analysis

One-way ANOVA H0 = There is no difference in means between sandhill crane habitats Ha = There is a difference in means

Tukey’s HSD Post-hoc Which habitats differ most?

Results

Emergent Marsh

Playa Recharge pond/Moist

soil unit

River channel

Sandbar0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Sandhill Roosting

Aver

age

over

all s

core

C

A

B AB

BC

Emergent Marsh Recharge Pond/Moist soil unit

Wet Meadow0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Sandhill Feeding

Aver

age

over

all s

core

AA

B

ANOVA results: F = 7.9973; F-crit = 3.1866; df = 2; p = 0.000987

ANOVA results: F = 8.8218; F-crit = 2.4954; df = 4; p = 7.02x10-6

Water depthHerb cover

Herb heightPatch width

Dom Veg

Interspersion

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

Sandhill Roosting - Emergent marsh (C)

Aver

age

scor

e

Water depthHerb cover

Herb height

Patch widthDom Veg

Interspersion

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500Sandhill Roosting - Playa (A)

Aver

age

scor

eWater depth

Herb cover

Herb height

Patch widthDom Veg

Interspersion

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

Sandhill Roosting - Recharge Pond (B)

Aver

age

scor

e

Water depthHerb cover

Herb height

Patch widthDom Veg

Interspersion

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500Sandhill Roosting - Sandbar (BC)

Aver

age

scor

e

Water depthHerb cover

Herb height

Patch widthDom Veg

Interspersion

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500Sandhill Roosting - River channel (AB)

Aver

age

scor

e

Dom VegHerb cover

Water depthHerb height

Landscape value0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.500

Sandhill Feeding - Emergent marsh (B)

Aver

age

Scor

e

Dom VegHerb cover

Water depthHerb height

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

Sandhill Feeding - Recharge pond (A)

Aver

age

scor

e

Dom VegHerb cover

Water depthHerb height

Landscape value0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

Sandhill Feeding - Wet meadow (A)

Aver

age

scor

e

Results Sandhill Roosting:

Emergent marsh on average scored lowest – patch width, water depth, herb cover

Playa scored highest – herb height, dominant vegetation, patch width Feeding:

Emergent marsh lowest – dominant veg, herb height

Discussion: Management recommendations Herb height: dominant vegetation Water depth: diverting/augmenting

Discussion: Scoring and evaluation process Field data collection and timing of species use of habitat Variables, thresholds, and weights Other possible analyses

Discussion: Future research priorities

Current research on occurrence or presence/absence of priority species Existing data Conducting surveys

Thresholds Revisit some sites

The North American Breeding Bird Survey; http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/genintro.htm

Conclusion

Valuable insight into accuracy of scoring methods Future research questions and analyses Experience for future personal research, stakeholder interactions, other

evaluation processes, etc.

Thank you! Any Questions? Literature Cited Boykin, K.G., Kepner, W.G., Bradford, D.F., Guy, R.K., Kopp, D.A., Leimer, A.K., Samson, E.A., East, N.F., Neale, A.C., Gergely, K.J. 2012. A national approach for

mapping a quantifying habitat-based biodiversity metrics across multiple spatial scales. Ecological Indicators. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.005   Colorado Natural Heritage Program. (CNHP) 2013. “Field Key to Wetland Habitat Types in the Lower South Platte River Basin, Colorado”. 24 May 2013. Colorado

Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado   Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2011. Statewide strategies for wetland and riparian conservation: Strategic plan for the wetland wildlife conservation program.

Version 2.0. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.   International Crane Foundation (ICF). 1983. Cranes of the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Online. http://www.savingcranes.org/sandhill-crane.html   Kessler, A.C., Merchant, J.W., Allen, C.R., Shultz, S.D. 2011. Invasive plants and sandhill crane roosting habitat. Invasive plant science and management. 4:369 –

377.   Kinzel, P.J., Nelson, J.M, Parker, R.S. 2005. Assessing Sandhill Crane roosting habitat along the Platte River, Nebraska. USDOI, USGS fact sheet.   Krapu, G.L., Brandt, D.A., Kinzel, P.J., Pearse, A.T. 2014. Spring migration ecology of the mid-continent sandhill crane population with an emphasis on use of the

Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska. Wildlife Monographs. 189:1-41.   Lemly, J., Gilligan, L. 2012 North Platte River Basin wetland profile and condition assessment. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, Colorado.   Lemly, J., L. Gilligan, and M. Fink. 2011. Statewide strategies to improve effectiveness in protecting and restoring Colorado’s wetland resource, including the Rio

Grande Headwaters pilot wetland condition assessment. Prepared for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Wetland Program Development Grant Assistance ID No. CD-97874301-0.

  Lemly, J., Gilligan, L., Smith, G. 2014. Lower South Platte River Basin profile and condition assessment., Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.   Ortega, C. P. 2013. Habitat quality for wetland-dependent priority wildlife species in the Lower South Platte River Basin, Colorado: species assessments and

monitoring protocols. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Environmental Protection Agency.   Stone, K.R. 2009. Stone, Katharine R. 2009. Grus canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/