How many boreal birds are enough: Forest management

and avian conservationDr. Erin Bayne

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

• NABCI was formed in 1999 with the goal of reversing declines of birds over the next 30 years in Canada, United States, and Mexico

• Continental objectives are stepped down to the BCR (Bird Conservation Region) to direct on the ground conservation

• Alberta is in BCR 6. Key steps of NABCI plans are to evaluate amount of habitat, estimate bird density, & link habitat & bird density models to evaluate if population objectives have been achieved. Alberta has been trying to see how well NABCI objectives using provincial scale habitat models.

Limitations of approach

• Most analyses of habitat in NABCI evaluation have been static and NOT tried to understand past variation or forecast future conditions.

• Most bird models have been based on relative Habitat Suitability Indices not absolute density models

• We think there is a need for far more precision in analyses & definitely a need to integrate forest planning if we are going to make target setting useful and to actually achieve objectives.

• Big question is what are the key things we need to include.

Challenges in BCR 6• The traditional data to understand

population size used by NABCI is Breeding Bird Survey (BBS).

• BBS can not directly estimate density because of how people count birds.

• BBS is also severely biased in BCR 6, within almost all routes in landscapes with low amounts of forest that is highly fragmented with agriculture being the dominant land-use.

PIF v1.0 – Rosenberg & Blancher 2005

Criticism – Thogmartin et al. 2006

Our solution

Alberta is a treasure troveif you look hard enough & people share!

BBSn=7538

BAMn = 18312

ABMIn=9367

EVERYBODY!

http://www.borealbirds.ca/

QPAD – Solymos et al. 2013

Black-throated Green Warbler

Boreal Chickadee

Western Tanager

White-throated Sparrow

http://abmi.ca/home/data-analytics/biobrowser-home/

Other things included in the models

• Climate• Soil type• Terrain• Spatial location• In some species, distance to different types

of water• Models include some landscape metrics at

larger spatial extents that the survey point• In other words, the models are pretty

complete and include a lot of reality

What does the future hold for these species?• For the most part, forestry companies in BCR

6 have plans in place for the next 30 years. • We looked at AlPac FMA using an ALCES

simulation based on their forest management plan to see how realistic was the possibility of achieving NABCI objectives.

Scenarios• Business as usual - current land use practices and all associated

anthropogenic footprint: forest harvesting (harvest units, gravel pits and transmission lines), bitumen exploration and development (bitumen mine sites, industrial plants, seismic lines, pipelines, and production and exploration wellsites), transportation (major and minor roads), and human settlements (towns/cities and acreages). Fire included determinstically.

• Protected areas – used a regional conservation plan from 2012 where 20% of the FMA was protected - distributed evenly across all forest types (removed from the harvest schedule but not fire).

• Climate change - increased fire rate to a maximum of 2.28% per year over 100 years (from current 0.61% per year) The average burn rate was calculated for 25 year intervals based on a low emissions scenario

So are NABCI objectives realistic?Suggests that for NABCI population goals to be achieved:

1) Harvest trajectories would haveto be altered to maintain or increase habitat, especially 50 years out

2) Density would have to increase in remaining breeding habitat (i.e. alter non-breeding ground constraints)

3) Fire would have to be reduced for some species

4) Or we need to tweak our land-use practices (i.e. within block attributes)

We can and are looking for better scenarios. But do they exist?

• When you model at provincial extent, it can be challenging to incorporate “all realities”.

• We are spending a lot of time on better simulations.

• Is this where we should spend the time or do we need to do more work on the models?

• In particular are we doing justice to the efficacy of forestry best practices?

• Models compare fire and harvest at the same age, BUT we treat all cutblocks the same and they only change based on age.

Green – caribou conservation strategyBlue - BAU

Brown Creeper Provincial Model

Brown Creeper & understory protection

Brown creeper and height of trees in understory protection blocks (AVI definition)

Did AVI measure the trees properly?

Below the canopy matters

• Using AVI the model for BRCR in understory protection does not make a lot of sense

• Using LiDAR we are detecting not just the height of remnant aspen but the rapidly growing white spruce

• Release of Sw results in a sufficiently complex structure for the BRCR to use at least some harvested areas far earlier than

Do the models predict temporal change well?

• Red=cut in 1994, blue=cut in 1984, black=unharvested

BUT: Ovenbird has long-term & stable negative response to harvest edges that the provincial model does not include

BUT: Red-eyed Vireo is more abundant closer to harvest edges AND this pattern depends on the age of the edge

Jeff Ball

Canada Warbler – Species at risk

1

2

3

0 25 50 75 100Percent post-harvest stands on bl

Abun

danc

e of

mal

es

N=132

DENSITY ~ ++ STUDYAREA + DISTRIVER+CTI

2ND ORDER USE ~ + + STUDYAREA* + DISTRIVER

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 200 400 600Distance (m) to nearest unharves

2nd

orde

r use

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0 2000 4000 6000Distance (m) to nearest used poi

2nd

orde

r use

N=2,112

Local density higher: • in unharvested stands

• post-harvest stands near unharvested stands• near conspecifics

• In Lesser Slave Lake

N=2,112

Implications for critical habitat designation

• If aspen forest with dense shrubs, on steep slopes, near rivers, and in areas with other Canada Warblers are critical habitat then:

• 1) Thus far, not a lot of evidence within harvest practices can make things better for Canada Warbler other than the amount of forest harvested

• 2) A lot of their best quality habitat may already be protected by the net-down (i.e. riparian buffers on steep slope to protect fish)

• 3) If conspecific attraction is long-term may be able to identify critical areas to set aside for this species at risk

• Current provincial models do not incorporate conspecific attraction but might make a huge difference if they clump together in netdown areas (computational challenging to model and map at that scale)

Is %change over time or size of remaining population what we should worry about more

What do we need to get a more accurate representation of how much different forestry

practices influence avian populations?• Models at provincial scales ignore complexity for the sake of generality

across species AND/OR because we lack the detailed environmental variables to model at this resolution everywhere

• More work needed on density estimation and making what everybody does consistent. While it may seem a rather boring statistical exercise, relative abundance is not getting us where we need to be. 6,000 birds left vs. 60,000 is a pretty big difference!

• We need an avian – forestry working group to better integrate information from avian research with attributes about within block structure over time to really see how forestry practices are or are not benefitting various species to see if there are real wins at meaningful scales.

Thanks to BAM and ABMI Team Members

Steering CommitteeErin Bayne (U of A), Steve Cumming (U. Laval), Samantha Song (ECCC), Fiona Schmiegelow (U of A)

Project Staff, Students, and Contributing ScientistsNicole Barker (Coordinating Scientist), Trish Fontaine (Spatial Database Manager), Peter Solymos (Statistical Ecologist), Diana Stralberg (Ecologist), Lionel Leston (PDF), Alberto Suarez Esteban (PDF), Tara Stehelin (PhD Student), Alana Westwood (Contributing Scientist), Samuel Haché (Contributing Scientist, CWS), Lisa Mahon (Contributing Scientist, CWS), Steven Van Wilgenburg (Contributing Scientist, CWS), Judith Toms (Contributing Scientist, CWS), Steve Matsuoka (Contributing Scientist, USGS Alaska).

Technical Committee

• Marcel Darveau, Ducks Unlimited Canada & UniversitéLaval

• André Desrochers, Université Laval• Pierre Drapeau, Université de Québec à Montréal• Charles Francis, Environment and Climate Change Canada• Colleen Handel, United States Geological Survey• Keith Hobson, Environment and Climate Change Canada

& University of Western Ontario• Craig Machtans, Environment and Climate Change Canada• Julienne Morissette, Ducks Unlimited Canada• Gerald Niemi, University of Minnesota - Duluth

• Rob Rempel, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources• Stuart Slattery, Ducks Unlimited Canada• Phil Taylor, Acadia University/BSC• Lisa Venier, Canadian Forest Service• Pierre Vernier, University of Alberta• Marc-André Villard, Université de Moncton

Funding PartnersGrants

Environment and Climate Change Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds Program)Joint Oil Sands Monitoring

Institutional/Infrastructure SupportUniversity of AlbertaUniversité Laval

Past FundersAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta Conservation Association, Alberta Innovates Technology Futures, Alberta Land-use Framework (Gov. Alberta), Alberta Research Council Inc., Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., Boreal Ecosystems Assessment for Conservation Networks (BEACONs), Canada Foundation for Innovation, Canada Research Chairs, Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canada Foundation for Innovation, Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, EC Habitat Stewardship Funds, Environmental Studies Research Fund, Fonds Québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies, Forest Products Association of Canada, Geomatics for Informed Decisions (GEOIDE), Killam Trusts, Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF) Quebec, National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, NSERC, Sustainable Forest Management Network, US Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, USFWS Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program, Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships

Data Partners: IndividualsK. Aitken, A. Ajmi, B. Andres, J. Ball, E. Bayne, P. Belagus, S. Bennett, R. Berger, M. Betts, J. Bielech, A. Bismanis, R. Brown, M. Cadman, D. Collister, M. Cranny, S. Cumming, L. Darling, M. Darveau, C. De La Mare, A. Desrochers, T. Diamond, M. Donnelly, C. Downs, P. Drapeau, C. Duane, B. Dube, D. Dye, R. Eccles, P. Farrington, R. Fernandes, M. Flamme, D. Fortin, K. Foster, M. Gill, T. Gotthardt, N. Guldager, R. Hall, C. Handel, S. Hannon, B. Harrison, C. Harwood, J. Herbers, K. Hobson, M.-A. Hudson, L. Imbeau, P. Johnstone, V. Keenan, K. Koch, M. Laker, S. Lapointe, R. Latifovic, R. Lauzon, M. Leblanc, L. Ledrew, J. Lemaitre, D. Lepage, B. MacCallum, P. MacDonell, C. Machtans, C. McIntyre, M. McGovern, D. McKenney, S. Mason, L. Morgantini, L. Morton, G. Niemi, T. Nudds, P. Papadol, M. Phinney, D. Phoenix, D. Pinaud, D. Player, D. Price, R. Rempel, A. Rosaasen, S. Running, R. Russell, C. Savignac, J. Schieck, F. Schmiegelow, D. Shaw, P. Sinclair, A. Smith, S. Song, C. Spytz, D. Swanson, S. Swanson, P. Taylor, S. Van Wilgenburg, P. Vernier, M.-A. Villard, D. Whitaker, T. Wild, J. Witiw, S. Wyshynski, M. Yaremko, as well as the hundred of volunteers collecting Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data.

Data Partners: InstitutionsAcadia University; Alaska Bird Observatory; Alaska Natural Heritage Program; Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute; Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc.; AMEC Earth & Environmental; AREVA Resources Canada Inc.; Avian Knowledge Network; AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.; Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd.; Bird Studies Canada; Breeding Bird Survey (coordinated in Canada by Environment Canada); BC Breeding Bird Atlas; Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.; Canfor Corporation; Daishowa Marubeni International Ltd; Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada; Canadian Wildlife Service and Science & Technology Branch, Environment Canada; Global Land Cover Facility; Golder Associates Ltd.; Government of British Columbia; Government of Yukon; Hinton Wood Products; Hydro-Québec Équipement; Kluane Ecosystem Monitoring Project; KomexInternational Ltd.; Louisiana Pacific Canada Ltd.; Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas; Manitoba Hydro; Manitoba Model Forest Inc.; Manning Diversified Forest Products Ltd.; Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas; Matrix Solutions Inc. Environment & Engineering; MEG Energy Corp.; Mirkwood Ecological Consultants Ltd.; NatureCounts; Nature Serve; Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group; Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; OPTI Canada Inc.; PanCanadian Petroleum Limited; Parks Canada (Mountain National Parks Avian Monitoring Database); Petro Canada; Principal Wildlife Resource Consulting; Regroupement QuébecOiseaux; Rio Alto Resources International Inc.; Saskatchewan Environment; Shell Canada Ltd.; Suncor Energy Inc.; Tembec Industries Inc.; Tolko Industries Ltd.; U.S. Army; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center; U.S. National Park Service; Université de Moncton; Université du Québec à Montréal; Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue; Université Laval; University of Alaska, Fairbanks; University of Alberta; University of British Columbia; University of Guelph; University of New Brunswick; University of Northern British Columbia; URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd.; West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.; Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.; Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc.