Avian Monitoring in the HFQLG Area – 2007
Ryan Burnett, Dennis Jongsomjit, Mark Herzog, and Diana Stralberg
PLAS Symposium – March 28, 2008
PRBO Conservation Science
Avian Monitoring in the Plumas-Lassen
1. Aspen Restoration
2. Fuels Reduction in Pine-Oak Habitat
3. Pileated Woodpecker MIS Monitoring
4. Landscape Distribution Models
PRBO Conservation Science
Aspen
PRBO Conservation Science
PRBO Aspen Study Sites
PRBO Conservation Science
Treated vs. Untreated Aspen ELRD
ELRD Treated vs. Untreated Aspen
8.00
Treated Aspen
7.00
Untreated Aspen
Conifer Forest
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Species Richness
Total Bird Abundance
PRBO Conservation Science
Trends – Treated vs. Untreated Aspen
Species Richness
Treated Trend = 8.9%/year
Untreated Trend = 5.2%/year
9
8
6
5
4
3
Treated
2
Untreated
Linear (Untreated)
1
Linear (Treated)
Total Bird Abundance
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
Treated Trend = 8.6%/year
Untreated Trend = 5.6%/year
8
7
# of Individuals/Point Visit
# of Species/Point
7
6
5
4
3
Treated
2
Untreated
Linear (Treated)
1
Linear (Untreated)
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
PRBO Conservation Science
Focal Species Response to treatment
ELRD Treated vs. Untreated Aspen
1.60
1.40
Annual Detections/Point
Treated Aspen
1.20
1.00
Untreated Aspen
Conifer Forest
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Chipping Sparrow
Mountain Bluebird
Tree Sw allow
Oregon Junco
Dusky Flycatcher
PRBO Conservation Science
Woodpeckers & Aspen
ELRD Treated vs. Untreated Aspen
0.70
Treated Aspen
Annual Detections/Point
0.60
Untreated Aspen
Conifer Forest
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Red-breasted
Hairy
Downy
Sapsucker Woodpecker Woodpecker
Northern
Flicker
Williamson's White-headed
Sapsucker Woodpecker
PRBO Conservation Science
Managing Aspen for Birds
• Regenerate, expand, and protect
• Manage for a range of aspen successional
stages.
• Manage for dense aspen regeneration – use fire
& protect wildfire affected stands from
herbivory.
• Don’t ignore riparian aspen systems
PRBO Conservation Science
Fuel Treatments in Pine-Oak Habitat
• Almanor Ranger District of the
Lassen N.F.
• Treatments implemented in 2005
& 2006
• Before-After/Control-Impact
design
• Focal species as response
variables
PRBO Conservation Science
Pine-Black Oak Habitat Avian Focal Species
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
White-headed Woodpecker
Band-tailed Pigeon
Hairy Woodpecker
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Dusky Flycatcher
Warbling Vireo
Cassin’s Vireo
Nashville Warbler
Hermit Warbler
Audubon’s Warbler
MacGillivray’s Warbler
Western Tanager
Oregon Junco
PRBO Conservation Science
Pine-Oak Results Overview
• Total Bird Abundance increased at treated sites
• All 13 focal species could not reject the null
hypothesis (i.e. no effect)
• Treatment effects were suggested for a few
species
• High variability in dataset (annual and site to site)
PRBO Conservation Science
Oregon (Dark-eyed) Junco
Predicted Annual Abundance Index
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Control
Sites Treated in Fall 2005
Sites Treated in Fall 2006
0.0
Predicted Abundance Index
Oregon Junco
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
PRBO Conservation Science
Audubon’s Warbler
Predicted Annual Abundance Index
0.5
1.0
Control
Sites Treated in Fall 2005
Sites Treated in Fall 2006
0.0
Predicted Abundance Index
1.5
Audubon Warbler
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
PRBO Conservation Science
Cassin’s Vireo
Predicted Annual Abundance Index
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Control
Sites Treated in Fall 2005
Sites Treated in Fall 2006
0.00
Predicted Abundance Index
Cassin's Vireo
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
PRBO Conservation Science
Hermit Warbler
Predicted Annual Abundance Index
Hermit Warbler
0.0
Predicted Abundance Index
0.2
0.4
0.6
Control
Sites Treated in Fall 2005
Sites Treated in Fall 2006
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
PRBO Conservation Science
Pine-Oak Conclusions
• Treatments have not resulted in large changes in
abundance of any species
• Negative effects likely to manifest in short-term;
benefits long-term
• Are DFPZ’s that reduce canopy to 40% w/even
tree spacing resulting in significant changes to
wildlife habitat?
PRBO Conservation Science
MIS Pileated Woodpecker Monitoring
• Lassen National Forest wide
• Management Indicator Species
• Pilot Project to test efficacy of monitoring
strategy for PIWO
• Baseline for trends
• Test & refine landscape habitat model
• Identify key areas and habitat conditions
• Collect data on other bird species
PRBO Conservation Science
Pileated Woodpecker Survey Sites
•>40% probability of
occurrence
•Randomly selected sites
•35 survey routes
•6 point transects
•Point counts followed
by playback surveys
PRBO Conservation Science
Survey Results – Detection Rates
• 21 of 35 transects had detections of Pileated
Woodpecker (60%)
• 82 of 234 survey sites had detections (35%)
In comparison:
• PLAS – 178 of 1128 sites (16%) had detections in
2006.
PRBO Conservation Science
Pileated Woodpecker Point Count Detections
0.35
Annual Detections per Station
0.3
Plumas-Lassen
0.25
Lassen MIS
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
<50 Meters
<100 Meters
Distance from Observer
All Distances
PRBO Conservation Science
Pileated Woodpecker Habitat - Canopy
Canopy Closure
60%
50%
30%
Canopy Height
20%
30
10%
29
0%
28
Pileated Detected
No Pileated Detected
Height (m)
% Closure
40%
27
26
25
24
23
22
Pileated Detected
No Pileated Detected
PRBO Conservation Science
Pileated Woodpecker Habitat – Dead Wood
Down Wood
60
40
30
20
Large Snags
10
10
9
0
Pileated Detected
No Pileated Detected
8
# within 50m radius
# of Pieces in 50m radius
50
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pileated Detected
No Pileated Detected
PRBO Conservation Science
Pros for Pileated Woodpecker as MIS
• Focused sampling & call back surveys increase
detections
• Indicator of important habitat conditions likely
affected by forest management practices (e.g. logs,
snags, large trees)
• Probably sensitive to environmental change
• Compatible with multi-species landbird monitoring
PRBO Conservation Science
Cons of Pileated Woodpecker as MIS
• Difficult to determine actual numbers of birds
• Peak of vocalizations prior to forest access
• Territory size is very large but sampling distant
sites in one day limits sample and more errors of
omission.
• Habitat needs appear similar to other species
currently the focus of management – Spotted Owl,
Northern Goshawk, and Pine Marten?
PRBO Conservation Science
Landscape Models - A Decision Support Tool
Spatially explicit
Scalable
Data rich
Planning TOOL
PRBO Conservation Science
PLAS Study Area
PRBO Conservation Science
Model Building Methods
• General vegetation types (reclassified)
• Habitat structure – size and density classes
• Habitat composition and patch structure
• Climate variables
• Identified list of appropriate landscape habitat variables for
each species
• Developed models using Maximum Entropy – included
model validation
• Generated spatial predictions using GIS habitat layers
PRBO Conservation Science
Fox Sparrow – response curves & model contribution
PRBO Conservation Science
Pileated Woodpecker
PRBO Conservation Science
Fox Sparrow
PRBO Conservation Science
Brown Creeper
PRBO Conservation Science
Integration and Outreach
Aspen Workshop
Community Outreach
Region 5 Forest Management Conference
International Partner’s in Flight Conference
PRBO Conservation Science
Acknowledgements
Region 5 of the USFS, National Fire Plan, PSW SNRC, HFQLG Monitoring
Lassen and Plumas National Forests – Mark Williams,
Tom Rickman, Bobette Jones, Coye Burnett, Al
Vasquez, Gary Rotta
40+ field biologists who collected the data
PRBO Conservation Science