USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70262377

Potential impacts of land-management schedules on grassland bird nests and fledglings

Abstract

Trade-offs exist between timing of grassland habitat management activities (e.g., weed and brush control) while also ensuring other conservation objectives (e.g., grassland bird reproductive success) are met. On land set aside for grassland conservation (e.g., lands enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program and some state and federal wildlife management areas), federal and state agencies set time frames for land management based on avoiding disturbance of grassland bird nests. However, recent calls for considering the needs of dependent fledglings in conservation plans imply a need to evaluate whether current time frames are adequate. We used initiation and end dates for 3,257 nests of 8 obligate grassland bird species in Illinois and Wisconsin and a simulation approach for fledgling survival to estimate the potential proportion of active nests at risk when management (e.g., mowing, fire) occurred on the 1st and 15th day of May, June, July, and August during the breeding season. Management during June had the potential to impact 24–61% of nests, depending on the species. Management during July had the potential to impact 4–52% of nests, depending on the species. If disturbance occurred during August, proportionately few active nests were at risk for any species (0–9% of nests on 1 August, 0–<0.5% on 15 August). Potential proportions of fledglings at risk from management were greatest in July for 7 of the 8 species (7–18%). Our study suggests that on lands where a primary conservation objective is to increase or ensure survival of grassland birds, delaying management activities until August could be beneficial for protecting both grassland bird nests and fledglings.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.00015164460757° to 47.183453927178135° latitude; -93.0757093933073° to -87.78304601430442° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel M. Wolcott, James R. Herkert, Christine Ribic, Rosalind B. Renfrew, David W. Sample. 2023-09-21. Potential impacts of land-management schedules on grassland bird nests and fledglings. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1488

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Considerations for using autonomous recording units to monitor northern bobwhite occupancy at large spatial scales

Northern bobwhites ( Colinus virginianus ) have experienced widespread declines across their range, increasing the need for population monitoring across broad spatial and temporal scales. Yet large-scale monitoring of post-breeding bobwhites remains limited by the time-intensive nature of fall (i.e., autumn) covey counts. Passive acoustic monitoring with autonomous recording units (ARUs) and automatic detection software may help overcome these constraints but requires further study. From 2017 to 2021, we paired in-person observer point counts with ARU surveys during the fall in southern Iowa, USA to 1) evaluate how ARU detections compare to observer detections, 2) assess the accuracy of automatic classification software for covey calls, 3) gauge the influence of weather and ordinal date on detection, and 4) offer best practices for processing ARU acoustic data. We found high correspondence (89.2%) in detection and non-detection outcomes between paired ARU and observer surveys. Across manually processed recordings, 95.7% of covey call detections occurred within a 35-min window (50–15 min before sunrise). Increasing wind speed and cloud cover were associated with reduced detection probabilities. Wind speeds ≥5 m/s resulted in detection probabilities <0.5. The cumulative probability of detecting bobwhites at a site exceeded 0.995 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] = 0.987, 0.999) after 4 survey days when technicians processed the files. Manual processing had the highest mean detection probability (0.75, 95% CrI = 0.66, 0.82) compared with automatic detection software with 2 different confidence thresholds (0.46 [95% CrI = 0.39, 0.53] and 0.45 [95% CrI = 0.36, 0.55]). Automatic detection software allowed for substantially faster processing with relatively few false positives (false positive rate of 0.014 to 0.038). Autonomous recording units coupled with automatic detection software provided a promising alternative to in-person observer point counts of bobwhite covey calls for determining site occupancy and have the potential to greatly increase capacity for landscape-level bobwhite monitoring.

Iowa↗

Developing a low-cost drone-based method for deploying and retrieving autonomous recording units in inaccessible areas

Autonomous Recording Units (ARUs) are increasingly used in research to support passive acoustic monitoring, but deployment in remote or inaccessible locations remains logistically challenging. Traditional manual placement is labor-intensive, time-consuming, potentially hazardous, and often limited to habitat edges, creating sampling biases and restricting spatial coverage. To address placement limitations in wetland systems, we developed and field-tested a low-cost, lightweight floating platform paired with a drone-based deployment and retrieval system. The drone-deployable ARU platform, constructed from inexpensive, off-the-shelf materials (~US $21 per unit), weighed ~560 g and was mounted with an ARU (AudioMoth) at ~1.2 m above water. The platform was designed for stability, portability, and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration Part 107 regulations. Field trials were conducted across 50 operations in various types of historical rice-field impoundments along the South Carolina coast, which provide critical habitat for secretive marsh birds such as rails (e.g ., Rallus, Laterallus , and Porzana ) and bitterns (e.g ., Botaurus and Ixobrychus ). All 50 deployments and retrievals were successful, demonstrating the robustness of the method under diverse hydrologic and vegetative conditions. Deployment times were significantly shorter than retrieval times (median 6 vs. 9 min), with retrieval requiring greater precision for hook engagement. Operation times scaled predictably with distance: deployment increased by 0.93 min/100 m (R 2 = 0.94) and retrieval by 1.17 min/100 m (R 2 = 0.95). No platform damage or displacement was observed, as emergent vegetation was likely providing natural anchoring. Our approach offers an affordable and effective solution for expanding ARU coverage in large, inaccessible wetlands, reducing sampling bias and enhancing biodiversity monitoring. With continued advances in drone payload capacity, battery endurance, and beyond-visual-line-of-sight flight regulations, our workflow could be adapted for deploying multi-sensor platforms (e.g., ARUs, eDNA samplers, water and air quality sensors, plant sample collectors, insect traps, and trail cameras) to support integrated biodiversity monitoring in challenging landscapes worldwide.

South Carollina↗