National marsh bird monitoring methods pilot study and where we go from here 16 january 2013
Download
1 / 31

National Marsh Bird Monitoring: Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here 16 January 2013 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 139 Views
  • Uploaded on

National Marsh Bird Monitoring: Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here 16 January 2013. Mark Seamans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, CO. Webinar Outline. Background History of Marsh Bird Monitoring Survey Protocol and Sampling Design Pilot Study Methods Results

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' National Marsh Bird Monitoring: Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here 16 January 2013' - zorion


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
National marsh bird monitoring methods pilot study and where we go from here 16 january 2013

National Marsh Bird Monitoring:Methods, Pilot Study, and Where We Go From Here16 January 2013

Mark Seamans

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO


Webinar outline
Webinar Outline

  • Background

    • History of Marsh Bird Monitoring

    • Survey Protocol and Sampling Design

  • Pilot Study

    • Methods

    • Results

  • Transition from Pilot to Operational Program


Target species
Target Species

  • Rallidae: clapper rail, black rail, king rail, sora, Virginia rail, and yellow rail, common moorhen, purple gallinule, American Coot, purple swamphen

  • Ardeidae: American bittern, least bittern

  • Aramidae: limpkin

  • Podicipedidae: pied-billed grebe

  • Scolopacidae: Wilson’s snipe


Background
Background

  • Workshops

    • 1998, 2006, 2011

  • King Rail Conservation Plan 2006

  • WaterbirdConservation for the Americas (Waterbirds Initiative) 2006 Assessment

  • AFWA-Webless Funding Priorities Report 2008

  • Independent research


Background continued
Background Continued

  • Survey Protocol

    • Courtney Conway

    • http://www.cals.arizona.edu/research/azfwru/NationalMarshBird/

    • Details of Protocol

  • Study Design

    • Johnson, D. H., J. P. Gibbs, M. Herzog, S. Lor, N. D. Niemuth, C. A. Ribic, M. Seamans, T. L. Shaffer, W. G. Shriver, S. V. Stehman, and W. L. Thompson. 2009. A sampling design framework for monitoring secretive marshbirds. Waterbirds 32:230-215.




Pilot study
Pilot Study

  • Wisconsin 2008

  • Idaho 2009 – 2010

  • Kentucky 2009

  • New York 2009

  • Florida 2010

  • Michigan 2010

  • Ohio 2011



Objectives of pilot
Objectives of Pilot

  • Do protocol and design work together

  • Sampling effort to achieve certain levels of precision for abundance or trend estimates. This included thoughts on how to stratify

  • As pilot progressed shifted focus to work under a new paradigm

    • How to use monitoring to address management issues

    • Can monitoring meet information needs for species of greatest concern


Methods
Methods

  • The Data

    • repeat visits within & among years, strata

    • Individuals identified (counted) each survey

    • Distance to individual estimated

    • Two-stage sample (variance estimator)

    • Covariates related to detection and abundance

  • Analysis

    • Binomial Mixture Model with Horvitz-Thompson Estimator

      • Detection related to distance done first

    • Zero-inflated Poisson model with Bayesian Framework

    • Abundance (& Occupancy) estimated by strata & year





Pilot results occupancy
Pilot Results: Occupancy

Florida Clapper Rail

2010: φ = 0.81 (0.70-0.92) 95% CI

2011: φ = 0.90 (0.80-0.97)

Idaho Sora

High Quality Stratum

2009: φ = 0.76 (0.63-0.83)

2010:φ = 0.86 (0.76-0.95)

General Stratum

2009: φ = 0.38 (0.18-0.76)

2010: φ = 0.21 (0.10-0.39)

Wisconsin Sora

2009: φ = 0.59 (0.50-0.70)

2010: φ = 0.49 (0.38-0.64)

2011: φ = 0.35 (0.25-0.54)




Precision of n as function of psus surveyed
Precision of the Upper Midwest (B)N as Function of % PSUs Surveyed


Precision of n as function of psus surveyed1
Precision of the Upper Midwest (B)N as Function of # PSUs Surveyed


Partitioning variance
Partitioning Variance the Upper Midwest (B)


Inferences from pilot
Inferences from Pilot the Upper Midwest (B)

  • There are a lot of some species on the landscape

  • Rare species are an issue

  • Omnibus approach to monitoring and what we did during the Pilot


Inferences cont
Inferences Cont. the Upper Midwest (B)

  • What can omnibus approach give us?

    • Inform harvest management, except for KIRA

    • Inform state conservation plans? Depends.

    • May reveal general habitat affinities

  • What omnibus approach cannot give us.

    • An assessment of KIRA or BLRA populations

    • Why they are declining and what to do about it

    • How any species responds to habitat management

      • Water levels, burning, invasive management, etc.


Proposed way forward
Proposed Way Forward the Upper Midwest (B)

  • Mix of omnibus and “management monitoring”

  • Mix of two would give us:

    • Experimental comparisons

    • Efficient way to meet needs of multi-species survey


King rail management
King Rail Management the Upper Midwest (B)


Data can be used to
Data can be used to: the Upper Midwest (B)

  • Nwrp = abundance from treatment areas

  • Ngen = abundance from general whole area

  • H0: Dwrp=Dgen

  • Ntotal = Nwrp+Ngen(a status assessment)


Marsh bird conservation program
Marsh Bird Conservation Program the Upper Midwest (B)

Steps to Conserving & Managing Marsh Birds

  • Define Conservation Issues

  • Develop Hypotheses or Management Objectives

  • Develop & Implement Management Actions

  • Monitor

  • Learn and repeat as necessary


ad