/
Habitat Suitability of the Yellow Rail in South-Central Man Habitat Suitability of the Yellow Rail in South-Central Man

Habitat Suitability of the Yellow Rail in South-Central Man - PowerPoint Presentation

marina-yarberry
marina-yarberry . @marina-yarberry
Follow
410 views
Uploaded On 2016-08-14

Habitat Suitability of the Yellow Rail in South-Central Man - PPT Presentation

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

yellow habitat scale rail habitat yellow rail scale marsh wetland fen landscape results year years rails patch study amp

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

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.


Presentation Transcript

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