Problem Set 1
Using the information provided below (i.e., the major sections of a hypothetical manuscript
being submitted for publication), write the first page(s) of a manuscript being submitted to the
Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) for publication up through but not including the
introduction (i.e., title, abstract, and any other information that a manuscript would require up to
the Introduction). Follow JWM guidelines!
Introduction
A species of special concern, willets (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus; Figure 1) have
shown 0.3-1.5% population declines per year throughout much of Connecticut for several
decades. While these declines appear to be related to loss and degradation of marsh habitats,
little quantitative information exists on willet-habitat relationships in such areas, limiting
conservation efforts. Thus, our objective was to quantify the effects of marsh habitat structure
on willet distribution in Connecticut marshes. During April-September, 2003 and 2004, we
conducted point counts, callback surveys, and vegetation measurements, in 39 Connecticut
marshes. To understand the importance of habitat structure to willet distribution, we compared
(1) willet use of major habitats (e.g., common reed [Phragmites australis]-dominated and
cordgrass meadow) and structural differences between these habitats (i.e., vegetation height and
plant species richness) and (2) habitat variables (e.g., vegetation height and coverage of Spartina
alterniflora and Phragmites australis, ditches, open water, mudflat, and flotsam) between
locations where willets were and were not documented.
Methods
Forty marshes were selected for study based on previous work conducted in Connecticut.
However, willet surveys were not completed at one marsh due to size constraints. Marshes were
salt and brackish, ranged in size from 2 to 307 ha, and spanned the entire Connecticut coast.
To document willet use (i.e., number of birds counted at a location) and distribution, we
conducted point counts and playback surveys at 97 locations distributed across the 39 study
marshes during 2003 and 2004 (i.e., 50-m radius point counts randomly located within each
marsh, >200 m apart, and stratified by major vegetation type; 10 min listening and observation
period, followed by 7 minutes of broadcasting tape recorded calls). The number of locations
sampled in each marsh was based on its size (i.e., the number of points that were >200 m apart
and >75 m from the marsh-upland edge). Surveys were conducted on 3 occasions between April
and September on each marsh. At each count/survey location, 2 perpendicular, 50 m, randomlyoriented line transects that originated at the location were sampled to estimate the percent cover
of different plant species, species richness, plant height, and amount of major habitat types and
other habitat variables (Tables 1, 2, and 3).
ANOVA with marsh as a blocking factor was used to examine differences in willet use
among major habitats. ANOVA (individual variables) with marsh as a blocking factor and
discriminant function analysis (DFA; all variables simultaneously) were used to compare habitat
variables between locations where willets were and were not documented. For the DFA, initial
variable reduction methods were employed, the model was fit using a stepwise forward
procedure, and the relative importance of each variable in the final model was assessed by
examining standardized canonical discriminant functions (SCDF). If data failed to meet the
assumptions of a test, they were rank-transformed prior to analysis. All tests were considered
significant at P ≤ 0.10.
Results
Willet use differed among major habitats (short-grass meadow > cordgrass meadow >
brackish mixture = cattail = common reed). Maximum vegetation height (common reed = cattail
> brackish mixture > cordgrass meadow = short-grass meadow), mean vegetation height
(common reed > cattail > brackish mixture > short-grass meadow = cordgrass meadow), and
plant species richness (Brackish mixture > short-grass meadow = cattail = common reed =
cordgrass meadow) also differed among major habitats (Table 2).
Compared with locations where they were not documented, sites used by willets had
shorter average and maximum vegetation height, more saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow hay, and
spike grass, and less cattail, common reed, and saltmarsh bulrush (Table 3). However, the
combination, in order of importance, of average vegetation height (SCDF = 0.596), and
saltmeadow hay (SCDF = -0.449), spike grass (SCDF = 0.351), and saltmarsh bulrush (SCDF = 0.272) cover best explained differences between locations (72% correct jackknifed classification
rate; canonical correlation = 0.632; P ≤ 0.001).
Discussion
Our data suggest that willets used short-grass meadow, cordgrass meadow, and brackish
mixture habitats more than common reed and cattail-dominated habitats, possibly because they
had shorter vegetation and often contained more diverse plant communities. Plants of particular
importance to willets in these salt and brackish marshes were saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow
hay, and spike grass. Our results are contrary to Benoit and Askins (2002; Wilson Bulletin
114:314-323), who found no relationship between willet abundance and short-grass meadow
cover in Connecticut, but similar to Benoit and Askins (1999; Wetlands 19:194-208), who found
willets only used areas of saltmarsh cordgrass and saltmeadow hay and were not found in areas
of common reed.
Management Implications
To improve salt and brackish marshes for willets, management should focus on the
creation and maintenance of short-grass meadow, cordgrass meadow, and brackish mixtures,
while working to remove common reed and cattail-dominated areas. Within these habitats,
management should provide a mixture of saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow hay, and spike grass.
Acknowledgements
Funding and support for this project were provided by the University of Florida and the
Long Island Sound Program, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Literature Cited
Table 1. Major marsh habitats used by willets in Connecticut, 2003-2004.
Type
Description
Common reed
Phragmites australis >50% coverage
Cattail
Typha latifolia >30% coverage, with no other single species
>30% coverage
Cordgrass meadow
S. alterniflora ≥50% coverage
Short-grass meadow
Spartina patens, S. Alterniflora, Distichlis spicata, and Juncus
gerardi combined comprise >50% coverage, with no species
comprising ≥50% coverage
Brackish mixture
Mixtures and coverage's of species not described above (i.e.,
other)
Table 2. Differences in willet use, mean and maximum vegetation height, and plant
species richness (mean ± SE) between major marsh habitats of Connecticut, 20032004.
Major Habitats
Variable
Common
Reed
Cattail
Cordgrass Short-grass Brackish
Meadow
Meadow
Mixture
Willet use
(No. of ind.)
0.0 ± 0.0
0.4 ± 0.3
1.7 ± 0.4
3.7 ± 0.5
0.5 ± 0.5
≤0.001
Mean vegetation
height (cm)
2.4 ± 0.1
1.9 ± 0.2
0.6 ± 0.0
0.5 ± 0.0
1.1 ± 0.1
≤0.001
Maximum
vegetation
height (cm)
2.8 ± 0.1
2.6 ± 0.1
1.1 ± 0.1
1.2 ± 0.1
1.9 ± 0.2
≤0.001
Plant species
richness
(No. of species)
3.4 ± 0.5
4.4 ± 1.0
2.7 ± 0.2
5.0 ± 0.4
8.3 ± 1.1
≤0.001
P
Table 3. Differences in habitat variables (mean ± SE) between locations where
willets were and were not documented in Connecticut marshes, 2003-2004.
Willets
Documented
Not
Documented
P
Mean vegetation height (cm)
0.6 ± 0.0
1.5 ± 0.1
≤0.001
Maximum vegetation height (cm)
1.2 ± 0.1
2.1 ± 0.1
≤0.001
Plant species richness (No. of species)
4.5 ± 0.4
4.4 ± 0.5
0.994
Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; %)
35.1 ± 4.5
22.4 ± 4.9
0.018
Saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens; %)
35.6 ± 4.3
10.0 ± 2.4
≤0.001
Cattail (Typha latifolia; %)
3.8 ± 2.3
11.4 ± 3.4
0.018
Common reed (Phragmites australis; %)
1.9 ± 0.7
27.2 ± 5.3
≤0.001
Spike grass (Distichlis spicata; %)
8.8 ± 2.2
2.9 ± 1.0
0.004
Saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus; %)
0.1 ± 0.1
2.6 ± 1.2
0.061
Other plant species (%)
8.1 ± 1.8
12.3 ± 2.7
0.118
Ditch (%)
2.8 ± 0.7
2.1 ± 0.5
0.374
Water (%)
1.0 ± 0.4
1.4 ± 0.4
0.527
Mud (%)
2.0 ± 0.6
3.3 ± 1.3
0.302
Flotsum (%)
1.0 ± 0.5
4.3 ± 1.7
0.251
Variable