An analysis at multiple spatial scales Kristen A Martin 1 Dr Nicola Koper 1 Dr Micheline Manseau 12 Ron Bazin 3 1Natural Resources Institute at the University of Manitoba 2Parks Canada ID: 446115
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Habitat Suitability of the Yellow Rail i..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Habitat Suitability of the Yellow Rail in South-Central Manitoba: An analysis at multiple spatial scales
Kristen A. Martin
1
, Dr. Nicola Koper
1
, Dr. Micheline Manseau
1,2
, Ron Bazin
3
1.Natural Resources Institute at the University of Manitoba
2.Parks Canada
3.Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada)Slide2
Yellow Rail HabitatTypically associated with fine-stemmed vegetation, shallow water, senescent vegetation coverSlide3
Yellow Rail HabitatWhat are the habitat requirements at larger spatial scales? For example:
-wetland size?
-composition or configuration of surrounding landscape?Slide4
Research Objectives
1) To evaluate the influence of variables from multiple spatial scales on habitat suitability for yellow rails:
Landscape
Patch (wetland)
Plot (survey point)
Phil Thorpe, USFWSSlide5
26 documented sites (excluding Hudson Bay)
Many areas have not been surveyed
Uncertainty about distribution, abundance, & population trends
Yellow Rails in Manitoba
Map from mgmt plant
Map adapted from COSEWIC 2009, in Environment Canada. 2012. Management Plan for the Yellow Rail (
Coturnicops noveboracensis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iii + 23 pp. Slide6
Research Objectives
2) To investigate the distribution of yellow rails in south-central ManitobaSlide7
Study Area
Non-random wetland selection
80 study wetlands: 44 in 2010, 36 in 2011
167 survey points
Surveyed in 2011
Surveyed in 2010
Basemap layer from ESRI (2010) Slide8
Methods – Yellow Rail Surveys
Two night surveys at each survey point: 23 May to 5 July
Call-broadcast: 5 min passive listening, 3 min call-broadcast, 2 min passive listeningSlide9
Methods – Habitat Data
3-km radius buffer around study wetland to create each landscape
FRAGSTATS to calculate:
Habitat Amount
Habitat Composition
Habitat Fragmentation
Habitat ConfigurationSlide10
Methods – Habitat Data
Vegetation Transects – 50 m long or until reached open water
Patch Scale: 3 random transects per
wetland; wetland size
Plot Scale: 1 transect at each survey point
Photo by D. FurutaniSlide11
Methods – Data Analysis
Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) used to evaluate the effects of habitat variables on yellow rail presence
Analysis of each spatial scale conducted separately – included year*variable interactions where necessary
Best fitting model selected using Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AIC
c
)Slide12
Results – Yellow Rail Detections
Year
# YERA Detected Round 1
# YERA Detected Round 2
2010
88
69
2011
31
16
Yellow rails detected at:
47% of survey points
44% of wetlands
Yellow rails detected
Yellow rails not detectedSlide13
Results – Landscape Scale
Model Parameters
Parameter Estimates (Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI)
p-value
AIC
c
ΔAIC
c
AIC
c
Weight
Habitat Composition
Habitat richness
-0.496 (-1.007, 0.014)
0.061
100.41
0
0.434
Year
-6.703 (-13.384, 0.022)
0.053
Habitat richness*year
0.646 (0.084, 1.207)
0.027
Habitat Amount
%Marsh/fen
0.093 (0.007, 0.179)
0.038
100.84
0.43
0.350
Year
2.327 (0.433, 4.222)
0.019
% Marsh /fen*year
-0.095 (-0.196, 0.006)
0.070
Habitat Fragmentation
Mean marsh shape
2.601 (-0.478, 5.679)
0.102
103.28
2.87
0.103
Null
Intercept
-0.163 (-0.620, 0.295)
0.488
104.15
3.74
0.067Slide14
Results – Landscape Scale
Year
Model Parameter
Parameter Estimate (Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI)
p-value
2010
Habitat Composition
Habitat Richness
0.149 (-0.092, 0.391)
0.213
Habitat Amount
% Marsh/fen
-0.002 (-0.057, 0.053)
0.938
2011
Habitat Composition
Habitat Richness
-0.496 (-1.029, 0.036)
0.067
Habitat Amount
% Marsh/fen
0.093 (0.003, 0.183)
0.043
Weak, positive relationship between yellow rail presence and the proportion of marsh/fen habitat in the landscape in 2011Slide15
Results – Patch Scale
Model & Parameters
Parameter Estimate (Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI)
p-value
AIC
c
ΔAIC
c
AIC
c
Weight
Global
Wetland area
0.003 (-0.001, 0.007)
0.136
95.16
0
0.819
Water depth
-0.086 (-0.181, 0.009)
0.082
% Cyperaceae
0.039 (-0.020, 0.097)
0.201
% Poaceae
-0.013 (-0.092, 0.066)
0.752
% Rush
0.149 (0.019, 0.279)
0.028
Year
-0.892 (-2.930, 1.136)
0.049
% Cattail
-0.434 (-0.929, 0.062)
0.091
% Cattail*Year
0.506 (-0.012, 1.024)
0.060
% Shrub
-0.312 (-0.725, 0.102)
0.144
% Shrub*Year
0.675 (0.014, 1.335)
0.049
Wetland Area
Wetland Area
0.003 (3.668E-05, 0.006)
0.051
105.73
5.42
0.054
Null
Intercept
-0.206 (-0.652, 0.240)
0.369
109.36
9.05
0.009Slide16
Results – Patch Scale
Year
Model Parameter
Parameter Estimate (Lower 95% CI,
Upper
95% CI)
p-value
2010
Shrubs
% Shrubs
0.423 (-0.190, 1.030)
0.17
2011
Shrubs
% Shrubs
-0.185 (-0.726, 0.350)
0.487
Weak, positive relationship between yellow rail presence and the proportion of rushes at the patch scale in both yearsSlide17
Results – Plot Scale
Model & Parameters
Parameter Estimates (Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI)
p-value
AIC
c
ΔAIC
c
AIC
c
Weight
Water Depth
Water depth
-0.072 (-0.154, 0.010)
0.087
185.71
0
0.272
Vegetation Composition & Water Depth
% Cattail
-0.107 (-0.250, 0.036)
0.147
185.78
0.07
0.263
% Shrub
-0.104 (-0.259, 0.051)
0.195
Water depth
-0.082 (-0.174, 0.010)
0.088
Null
Intercept
-1.293 (-3.183, 0.597)
0.184
186.61
0.9
0.174
Vegetation Composition
% Cattail
-0.121 (-0.272, 0.030)
0.120
186.69
0.98
0.167
% Shrub
-0.092 (-0.258, 0.074)
0.280
No significant relationships between yellow rail presence and any of the plot scale variablesSlide18
Discussion
Yellow rail presence was widespread throughout study area: 25 new sites identified
BUT...2010 & 2011 were wet years – unsure if these locations suitable in drier yearsSlide19
Discussion
Importance of wetlands in landscape
:
-
important below certain threshold?
2010: landscapes had mean of 17% marsh/fen habitat
2011: landscapes had mean of 12% marsh/fen habitat -
initial habitat selection cue? - use of multiple wetlands? Slide20
Discussion
Proportion of rushes at patch scale
No effect of wetland size
(<1 ha to >1800 ha)
Lack of significant associations at plot scale
- could be related to non-random wetland selection
- different in drier years?
Slide21
Recommendations
Amount of marsh/fen habitat in landscape may be important for identifying suitable yellow rail habitat
Conduct multiple spatial scale study in drier years to see if trends are consistent
“Lots” of yellow rail habitat in south-central Manitoba in wet years....Slide22
Thank You!Dr. Nicola Koper, Dr. Micheline Manseau, Ron BazinManitoba Conservation SDIF Grant
Manitoba Graduate Fellowship
NSERC
Derek Furutani
Manitoba landowners