Abstract
Species often exhibit regionally specific habitat associations, so habitat association models developed in one region might not be accurate or even appropriate for other regions. Three programs to survey wetland-breeding birds covering (respectively) Great Lakes coastal wetlands, inland Great Lakes wetlands, and the Prairie Pothole Region offer an opportunity to test whether regionally specific models of habitat use by wetland-obligate breeding birds are transferrable across regions. We first developed independent, regional population density models for four species of wetland-obligate birds: Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), Sora (Porzana carolina), and American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus). We then used adjusted pseudo-R2 values to compare the amount of variation explained by each model when applied to data collected in each of the three regions. Although certain habitat characteristics, such as emergent vegetation and wetland area, were consistently important across regions, models for each species differed by region—both in variables selected for inclusion and often in the directionality of relationships for common variables—indicating that habitat associations for these species are regionally specific. When we applied a model developed in one region to data collected in another region, we found that explanatory power was reduced in most (71%) models. Therefore, we suggest that ecological analyses should emphasize regionally specific habitat association models whenever possible. Nonetheless, models created from inland Great Lakes wetland data had higher median explanatory power when applied to other regions, and the amount of explanatory power lost by other transferred models was relatively small. Thus, while regionally specific habitat association models are preferable, in the absence of reliable regional data, habitat association models developed in one region may be applied to another region, but the results need to be cautiously interpreted. Additionally, we found that median explanatory power was higher when local-scale habitat characteristics were included in the models, indicating that regionally specific models should ideally be based on a combination of local- and landscape-scale habitat characteristics. Conservation practitioners can leverage such regionally specific models and associated monitoring data to help prioritize areas for management activities that contribute to regional conservation efforts.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | e4499 |
| Journal | Ecosphere |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We thank members of the Scientific Advisory Committee of Birds Canada's Long Point Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Program, H. Specht, and anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the paper. The Dakotas Wetland Survey (DWS) research was undertaken by the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) as part of its Grasslands Ecosystem Initiative. We are grateful for the efforts of numerous research staff of NPWRC, in particular Jennifer W. Marlow, Melody R. Miller (crew leader), Felicia Y. Sargeant, Jill A. Shaffer (crew leader), Jerry W. Toll, and Michael B. Whitt (crew leader). We are grateful to Harold A. Kantrud (NPWRC), who trained field crews in Stewart and Kantrud's (1971) wetland classification system. We are also grateful to the many private land owners and operators and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for access to wetlands. In particular, we thank the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust (formerly North Dakota Wetlands Trust) and the late Arnold D. Kruse for access to wetlands on Trust property in Dickey County, North Dakota. We thank the USFWS for their logistical support throughout the study. Funding for the DWS project was provided by the USGS and USFWS. The Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program (CWMP) research was conducted by researchers from 11 US and Canadian universities, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Birds Canada. We are grateful to the numerous field crews for their contributions to the ongoing monitoring program as well as land owners for permissions to survey on their properties. The CWMP was funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative as provided by the Great Lakes National Program Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, grant number GL-00E01567. Although the research described in this work has been funded by the USEPA, it has not been subjected to the agency's required peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. The GLMMP was conducted by hundreds of volunteer participants with the assistance of Tracy Barber, Catherine Jardine, and Kathy Jones and a large team of regional coordinators, to whom we are grateful. Funding for the GLMMP has been provided by Ducks Unlimited Canada, Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, Environment and Climate Change Canada, USEPA, Government of Ontario, GLRI, John and Pat McCutcheon Charitable Foundation, Nature Conservancy of Canada, TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, USFWS, and Wildlife Habitat Canada. Land use and land cover data were obtained for the Great Lakes basin from the North American Land Change Monitoring System, which is a collaborative effort by Natural Resources Canada, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión Nacional Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, and the USGS and is facilitated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The collection of these data was partly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The views and conclusions in this article represent the views of the authors and the U.S. Geological Survey but do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
Funding Information:
We thank members of the Scientific Advisory Committee of Birds Canada's Long Point Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Program, H. Specht, and anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the paper. The Dakotas Wetland Survey (DWS) research was undertaken by the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) as part of its Grasslands Ecosystem Initiative. We are grateful for the efforts of numerous research staff of NPWRC, in particular Jennifer W. Marlow, Melody R. Miller (crew leader), Felicia Y. Sargeant, Jill A. Shaffer (crew leader), Jerry W. Toll, and Michael B. Whitt (crew leader). We are grateful to Harold A. Kantrud (NPWRC), who trained field crews in Stewart and Kantrud's ( 1971 ) wetland classification system. We are also grateful to the many private land owners and operators and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for access to wetlands. In particular, we thank the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust (formerly North Dakota Wetlands Trust) and the late Arnold D. Kruse for access to wetlands on Trust property in Dickey County, North Dakota. We thank the USFWS for their logistical support throughout the study. Funding for the DWS project was provided by the USGS and USFWS. The Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program (CWMP) research was conducted by researchers from 11 US and Canadian universities, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Birds Canada. We are grateful to the numerous field crews for their contributions to the ongoing monitoring program as well as land owners for permissions to survey on their properties. The CWMP was funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative as provided by the Great Lakes National Program Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, grant number GL‐00E01567. Although the research described in this work has been funded by the USEPA, it has not been subjected to the agency's required peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. The GLMMP was conducted by hundreds of volunteer participants with the assistance of Tracy Barber, Catherine Jardine, and Kathy Jones and a large team of regional coordinators, to whom we are grateful. Funding for the GLMMP has been provided by Ducks Unlimited Canada, Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, Environment and Climate Change Canada, USEPA, Government of Ontario, GLRI, John and Pat McCutcheon Charitable Foundation, Nature Conservancy of Canada, TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, USFWS, and Wildlife Habitat Canada. Land use and land cover data were obtained for the Great Lakes basin from the North American Land Change Monitoring System, which is a collaborative effort by Natural Resources Canada, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión Nacional Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, and the USGS and is facilitated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The collection of these data was partly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The views and conclusions in this article represent the views of the authors and the U.S. Geological Survey but do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Ecosphere published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America.
Keywords
- Great Lakes region
- Prairie Pothole Region
- distribution
- habitat association
- model transferability
- remotely sensed data
- wetland birds
