Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Endangered Species I have Known Marbled Murrelet Mariana and Hawaiian Crows Hawaiian Hawk California Condor Quality of Old Growth For Marbled Murrelets • Marbled Murrelet – Seabird that uses old growth for nesting – Needs nest structures – Needs protection from predators Marbled Murrelet Study • Quantify Nest Predation and Behavior of Predators • 5-year cooperative study – all relevant stakeholders • 49 forested stands – 12 types defined by 3 factors • proximity to human activity • fragmentation • stand structure Simulating Murrelet Nests • Ascend into canopy of suitable murrelet nest trees with ropes • Select suitable nest platform – place egg or chick – monitor a subsample with cameras Artificial Nest Experiments • Eggs – 60 x 40 mm, painted, wax coated • Chicks – Blk/Yel chickens, gutted, borax • Motion Sensitive Transmitters – Check nests every 2 days Potential Predators at Artificial Nests? • Video and still cameras (camera nests not used in analysis) • Calibrate photos with marks on wax coated eggs and chick transmitters Cameras Confirm Diversity and Avian and Mammalian Predators in Canopy Steller’s Jay Crow Gray Jay Deer Mouse N. Flying Sq. Douglas Sq. Chipmunk Chicks Eggs Pie Graph 7 Deer Mouse Pie Graph 6 Gray Jay N. Flying Squirrel Steller’s Jay Jay Chickadee Woodpecker N = 28 chickphoto: 4 chickphoto: 1 chickphoto: 0 chickphoto: 4 chickphoto: 10 eggphoto: 5 eggphoto: 3 eggphoto: 1 eggphoto: 1 eggphoto: 4 eggphoto: 1 N = 19 Research with Arboreal Rodents • Field Trials •Live Pigeon Nestlings •Night Trials •Realistic • Captive Trials •Food Type •Food Size •Effect of Hunger R.A. Wood (Max. # / 10-min. Point Count) Number of Birds Stand Complexity and Corvid Abundance 2 • Diversity and abundance increase with canopy complexity American Crow Common Raven Gray Jay Steller's Jay 1 0 Simple Complex Very Complex Structure of Forest Canopy – Due to strong association of Gray Jays with old, very complex forests • F(2,44) = 12.8, P < 0.001 MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 0.7 MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 1.11 2222 r2 = 0.45 2 r = .45 P<0.001 2020 22 Days before nest was preyed on before nest was preyed on Stand Complexity, Corvid Abundance and Predation r2 = 0.36 Days 1818 Before 1616 20 Nests Preyed 1414 Upon 18 1212 16 1010 8 14 8 0 SimNrCo MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 0.7 Simple SimNrFr Far Contiguous ComFarCo SimFarFr Simple Far Fragmented ComFarFr SimNrCo Near Contiguous Simple ComNrCo SimNrFr ComNrFrNear Fragmented Simple OGFarCo ComFarCo Complex Far Contiguous OGFarFr ComFarFr Complex Far Fragmented OGNrFr MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 1.29 ComNrCo Complex Near Contiguous ComNrFr Complex WA Stands byNear LandscapeFragmented Class Regr OGFarCo Very Complex Far Fragmented OGFarFrComplex Far Contiguous Very OGNrCoComplex Near Fragmented Very OGNrFr Complex Near Contiguous Very 0 11 22 Number of corvids per point Number of Corvids per Point Matrix of Regenerating Forest 50m 100m 200m Proportion of Nests Surviving 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Human Activity Center in Matrix 1.0 50m 100m 200m 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Days Since Nest Was Placed In Field Edge Effects are affected by landscape – Predation is slightly slower and independent of distance from the forested stand’s edge (P = 0.62) when the surrounding matrix is young forest – Predation is rapid and dependent on distance from the forest edge (P = 0.05) when the forest abuts a human use area (campground, small town, etc.) Contiguous Young Forest Interface Between Contiguous Old growth And young forest Days to predation for eggs (the darker the color the lower the predation) Lowest Predation where landscape is not patchy, edges are between young forest and old growth, and forest patches are predominantly of a single type Days to predation = 8.04 – 8.16 landscape patch density at 5km + 1.10 landscape contrast weighted edge density at 2km – 10.31 Shannon-Weaver evenness index at 2km (R2 = 0.27) One of the last of its breed Decline of ‘Alala in the Wild Number of 'Alala 1200 1000 800 ? 600 400 200 0 Current Population: ? ? Listed as Endangered (Priority 2) 1967 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 3 0 Strategies for Recovery • Identify and Remove Limiting Factors • Manipulate Wild and Captive Pairs for Maximum Population Growth • Restore Population to Historical Range Percentage Surviving Survival of Released ‘Alala 100 10 80 60 40 9 7 Survivors Returned to Captivity 7 10 5 12 14 20 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Mortality of Released ‘Alala (N=21 Deaths) Toxoplasmosis Bacterial (Erysipelas) + Toxoplasmosis Fungal (Basidiomycete) + Toxoplasmosis Hawaiian Hawk Predation Unknown Mongoose Predation + Toxoplasmosis Col 1: 8 Col 1: 3 Col 1: 1 Col 1: 1 Col 1: 1 Conflicts Among Endangered Species Number of Alala in Wild 1200 1000 30 ? 25 800 20 ? 600 15 ? 400 10 200 5 0 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 Year 1980 2000 Number of Alala in Captivity A Century of Change Island Paradise? Declines in Aga 3000 Guam Rota Number of Aga 2500 2000 ? 1500 1000 500 0 1940 Listed as Endangered (Priority 2) 1984 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Agents of Decline • Brown Tree Snake • Rats, Monitor Lizards, Drongos • Allee Effects • Environmental Stochasticity – typhoons • Infertility • Homesteading, Tourism Mean (SE) expenditures ($) Ignoring Islands 6x106 Mainland species Island species 5x106 4x106 3x106 2x106 1x106 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 Continued Extinction? ‘Alala Aga Recovery • Outline of recovery actions needed within 60 days • Recovery Plans developed by Recovery Team for the Regional Manager • Prioritization of species (add C for conflict) Monotypic Genus Species Subspecies High Risk High Low Threat Threat 1 4 2 5 3 6 Moderate Risk High Low Threat Threat 7 10 8 11 9 12 Low Risk High Low Threat Threat 13 16 14 17 15 18 5 Expenditures [thousands (000)] 1994 4 3 2 1 • Annual Expenditures do Not Follow Priorities (Restani 0 Expenditures [log thousands (000)] priority vs vs logtot92 logtot93 5 1995 4 3 and Marzluff 2001) 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Highest 12 14 16 Lowest Priority rank 18 Why Aren’t Priorities Followed? • Congressional earmarking – takes part of Service budget and stipulates it to be spent on particular species • Allure of sexy species – high visibility, good PR, good chance of recovery • Lawsuits – For sexy species with public appeal • Poor Coordination – Conservation of species in one part of its range may not offset conservation in less important region • Plans are not kept up to date – priorities may no longer be valid Effect of Earmarking • 1994 – total recovery budget for usfws = 29.55 million – Earmarked portion was 10.392 million (35%) • Only 28% of the earmarks were for species ranked as 1 or 2 on the priority list • A few sexy big winners – – – – – Peregrine (900K) rank = 9 Condor (600K) rank = 4C Wolves (1.6 mill) rank =3-5C Manatee (500K) rank = 5C Spotted Owls (2.35 mil) rank = 9C Wide-ranging Species Benefit From Not Following Priorities Mean expenditures (log thousand $) 5 4 3 logsqkm vs Residual 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Range size (log km2) 6 7 8 Things are Different Down Under (Endangered Birds in Australia; Garnett et al. 2003) Status Of The California Condor And Efforts To Achieve Its Recovery • A report from the AOU Committee on Conservation, California Condor Blue Ribbon Panel (subcommittee) • A Joint Initiative of The AOU and Audubon California • Funded by The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and private donors • Panel Members: Jeffrey Walters (chair), Scott Derrickson, Michael Fry, Susan Haig, John Marzluff, Joseph Wunderle • Assisted By: Brock Bernstein, Karen Velas Photo by Sue Haig Pre-assessment, Site Visits, Interviews, Literature, Comments • Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, The Peregrine Fund World Center For Birds of Prey (Boise), Oregon Zoo • Hopper Mountain and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuges, Vermillion Cliffs (Arizona, TPF), Big Sur (Ventana Wildlife Society) and Pinnacles National Monument • Bob Risebrough, Chris Barr, Joseph Brandt, Diane Elam, Jesse Grantham, Paul Henson, Michaela Koenig, Marge Kolar, Ken McDermond, Ivett Plascencia, Richard Posey, Mike Stockton, Marc Weitzel, Ed Lorentzen, Ron Jurek, Dale Steele, Art Gaffrey, Kathy Sullivan, Tom Cade, Eddie Feltes, Bill Heinrich, Grainger Hunt, Peter Jenny, Lindsay Oaks, Chris Parish, Cal Sandfort, Randy Townsend, Rick Watson, Joseph Burnett, Kelly Sorenson, Jim Petterson, Scott Scherbinski, Alacia Welch, Don Janssen, Mike Mace, David Remlinger, Bruce Rideout, Don Sterner, Mike Wallace, Mike Clark, Cathleen Cox, Chandra Davis, Leah Greer, Curtis Ing, Susie Kasielke, John Lewis, Janna Wynn, Estelle Sandhaus, Jane Heartline, David Shepardson, Shawn St. Michael, David Moen, Tony Vechio, Mike Best, Bob Stine, Don Geivet, Steve Thompson, Noel Snyder, Cynthia Stringfield, Kathy Ralls, Lloyd Kiff, Allan Mee, Keith Day, Jim Parrish, Nancy Sandburg, Steve Ferry, Don Smith, Eduardo Peters, Michael Moore, Brian Sharp, Tice Supplee, Dave Clendenen, Jan Hamber, Bill Toone The Condor Recovery Program Has Reached A Crossroads • Captive breeding and release has brought the condor from 22 birds and extirpation from the wild to 300+ birds and 150+ wild birds in two decades – 4 breeding facilities – Releases southern and central California, Arizona, Baja in Mexico • Condors survive in the wild only through constant and costly human assistance and intervention Figure from Wallace et al. 2007 California Condor Master Plan The program is caught between the financial and logistical pressures required to maintain an increasing number of condors in the wild and the environmental problems that preclude establishment of naturally sustainable, free-ranging populations The Bottom Line: Get The Lead Out • Conclusion: condors suffer lead poisoning from ingestion of spent ammunition sufficiently frequently to raise mortality rates well above those required for sustainability – Evidence has become overwhelming, occurs at all release sites – Voluntary programs with excellent compliance, local regulations unlikely to reduce contamination to near zero, which is what is required – Population increase is not sustainable, current populations are not viable – Effects on human health, other scavengers are possible • Recommendation: USFWS head effort to replace lead ammunition with non-lead alternative ammunitions nationally, or minimally within condor range Photo Courtesy of The Peregrine Fund Hunting Good, Lead Bad Photo by Anna Fuentes • Conclusion: Hunters are the dominant predators within condor’s range and are important source of food for condors • Recommendation: Eliminating lead threat should not be accomplished by reduction in hunting, but by replacement of lead ammunition with non-lead alternatives. Hunters should be made aware of their importance to condors Cascading Effects Of Lead • Conclusions: Lead is the ultimate source of other problems: condors are provided with supplemental food at fixed sites to reduce exposure to lead and so birds can be trapped, tested and treated for lead poisoning. • Supplemental food decreases lead exposure, but interferes with normal wide-ranging foraging behavior, affects time and energy budgets, affects other behaviors. – Yet unclear whether condors can subsist without subsidies on modern landscapes • Recommendation: Supplemental feeding must continue until lead problem solved, but encourage birds to forage more widely to learn about the capacity of condors to become self-sufficient foragers on current landscapes Photo courtesy of USFWS We Bad • Conclusions: Supplemental feeding may promote development of inappropriate behavior • Great progress made in refining captive-rearing and release techniques to produce better behavior, inappropriate behavior no longer impediment to successful reintroduction although still occurs • Parent-rearing generally more effective than puppet-rearing, latter produces greater quantity of birds for release Photo Courtesy of USFWS • Recommendations: Continue emphasis on parentrearing while demand for birds remains low, quality more important than quantity • Continue development puppet-rearing, improve rearing and release techniques by making them more closely resemble natural processes rearing and socialization – Endorse effort evaluate puppet-rearing and group socialization techniques in Baja California release, encourage similar experiment parent-reared and parent-socialized birds if opportunity arises new release area • Continue close integration between captive and field facilities in managing behavior • Once lead issue resolved, release established breeding pairs, remaining old birds from original wild population – Knowledge of latter could be invaluable to life skills of younger birds once they are no longer dependent on humans Talking Trash • Conclusions: Successful nesting in southern California is contingent upon intensive nest monitoring because of the microtrash problem • Most promising approaches to problem are cleaning up trash, returning offending adults to captivity for aversive training, promoting more natural foraging patterns – Latter may not reduce feeding of microtrash by breeders with tradition of such behavior Recommendation: Continue to clean up trash, conduct experiments with aversive training Photo courtesy of USFWS Time To Reorganize Partner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Los Angeles Zoo San Diego Wild Animal Park The Peregrine Fund Annual Rearing Expenditur Facility e $857,000 no $573,000 $1,479,000 $1,520,000 * Ventana Wildlife $244,000 *IncludesSociety $394,000 in earmarked funds through USFWS. Pinnacles National Monument (Park Service) $500,000 Oregon Zoo $172,000 Release Site yes yes yes Bitter Creek, Hopper Mountain none Baja Arizona no no yes Big Sur Pinnacles none • Conclusions: Structure of program reflects past rather than current or future conditions, reorganization will improve effectiveness • Central elements = Recovery Team, field working group, Coordinator – Recovery Team too large, resembles stakeholder group in lacking independent scientists outside the program – Field working group highly effective – USFWS program including Coordinator housed refuge office associated site first releases, but now these refuges only fraction range southern California birds, Coordinator monitors program spanning 2 countries, 3 USFWS regions. • Establish USFWS Condor Recovery Office Recommendations: Reorganize to better reflect current and future circumstances – Condor Recovery Coordinator handles basic programmatic coordination – Condor Research and Monitoring Coordinator (USFWS or USGS staff scientist) – House in Sacramento regional office, report to Deputy or Assistant Regional Director • Establish Recovery Implementation Team – Comprised organizations raising, rearing, releasing, and monitoring condors – Modeled after field working group • Establish Science Advisory Team – Small, scientifically focused, advisory group composed largely of independent scientists outside of the condor program – Disband Recovery Team • Form a Policy Advisory Team – Comprised of leaders of partner organizations – Includes Coordinator. Research And Data • Conclusion: Current contribution research insufficient. Although there is effective feedback between monitoring and management, adaptive management framework that includes research not evident • Recommendation: Presence Research and Monitoring Coordinator and Science Advisory Team should elevate research. Adopt formal adaptive management approach that includes research to address key issues • Conclusion: Problems with standardization, management and ownership data seriously impede effectiveness of the program • Recommendation: As interim measure, hire data manager/statistician – Oversee existing data, assist Research and Monitoring Coordinator with standardization data collection, reporting, storage – Summarize extant data for review and evaluation – Develop standardized databases to be used throughout program Population Structure and Current and Future Release Sites • Conclusion: As numbers increase and birds range more widely, structure of overall population becomes important question. There is no plan for metapopulation development and conservation of species range wide (e.g., optimum distribution of release sites) • Recommendation: Assess utility current and future release sites on metapopulation scale to develop range-wide plan to manage population structure and viability. – Do not open new release sites until lead issue resolved. • Conclusion: Field staffing southern California release site operated by USFWS is insufficient. Monitoring requirements there exceed those at other release sites, yet fall to small number of temporary employees, in contrast to large number permanent staff at other sites • USFWS should either support adequate number of permanent staff or focus support on recovery coordination and find partners willing to adequately staff southern California site – Consider site in Sierras as alternative, especially for release of 4 remaining condors originally captured from the wild once lead issue resolved Reaching Out Photo Courtesy of USFWS • Conclusions: Outreach programs are essential to condor recovery. Program partners active locally, but look to USFWS for assistance and leadership at national level. • Extensive outreach effort to rally public support for replacement lead ammunition, emphasizing human health and condors, is urgent need • Recommendation: USFWS provide more leadership in outreach at national level, especially on lead issue Other Issues • Conclusion: Feeding on marine mammals is positive development, but may result accumulation contaminants such as DDT, PCBs • Recommendation: Vigorous investigation impact contaminants on reproduction among central California birds • Conclusion: Intensive monitoring of released birds is essential – Currently necessary to reduce mortality due to lead poisoning – Important to detect and treat inappropriate behavior quickly – In southern California critical to nesting success currently – Once current problems are solved, monitoring will be needed to track population dynamics, foraging patterns and dispersal • Recommendation: Continue demographic, behavioral monitoring – Continue current monitoring intensity until lead, microtrash issues resolved – Integrate monitoring into adaptive management framework in order to learn about emerging issues such as foraging capabilities and connections between populations. • Recommendation: Continuing veterinary coordinator position to facilitate information transfer on topics such as vaccines and procedures A Vision For The Future • Two decades ago condors were extirpated from the wild and nearly extinct, task of recovering them was so daunting as to seem hopeless. • Today condors have been brought back from brink of extinction and returned to nature. The lead problem has created an impasse, but it is not insoluble. • New challenges will arise as condors become more independent of humans and range more widely, but they can be faced. A Vision For The Future • We can imagine that recovery of the California Condor, once almost inconceivable, could become a reality.