Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WM 2.2.1.4 Habitat use and conditions:
Recent study results in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida complement
information from earlier investigations in Texas and Alabama (summarized in the 1996
Atlantic Coast and 2003 Great Lakes recovery plans) regarding habitat use patterns of
piping plovers in their coastal migration and wintering range. As documented in Gulf
Coast studies, nonbreeding piping plovers in North Carolina primarily used sound (bay or
bayshore) beaches and sound islands for foraging and ocean beaches for roosting,
preening, and being alert (Cohen et al. 2008). The probability of piping plovers being
present on the sound islands increased with increasing exposure of the intertidal area
(Cohen et al. 2008). Maddock et al. (2009) observed shifts to roosting habitats and
behaviors during high-tide periods in South Carolina.
As observed in Texas studies, Lott et al. (2009) identified bay beaches (bay shorelines as
opposed to ocean-facing beaches) as the most common landform used by foraging piping
plovers in southwest Florida. In northwest Florida, however, Smith (2007) reported
landform use by foraging piping plovers about equally divided between Gulf (oceanfacing)
and bay beaches. Exposed intertidal areas were the dominant foraging substrate
in South Carolina (accounting for 94% of observed foraging piping plovers; Maddock et
al. 2009) and in northwest Florida (96% of foraging observations; Smith 2007). In
southwest Florida, Lott et al. (2009) found approximately 75% of foraging piping plovers
on intertidal substrates.
Several studies identified wrack (organic material including seaweed, seashells,
driftwood, and other materials deposited on beaches by tidal action) as an important
component of roosting habitat for nonbreeding piping plovers. Lott et al. (2009) found
>90% of roosting piping plovers in southwest Florida in old wrack. In South Carolina,
45% of roosting piping plovers were in old wrack, and 18% were in fresh wrack
(Maddock et al. 2009). Thirty percent of roosting piping plovers in northwest Florida
were observed in wrack substrates (Smith 2007). In Texas, seagrass debris (bayshore
wrack) was an important feature of piping plover roost sites (Drake 1999). Mean
abundance of two other plover species in California, including the listed western snowy
plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), was positively correlated with abundance of
wrack during the nonbreeding season (Dugan et al. 2003).
Atlantic Coast and Florida studies highlighted the importance of inlets for nonbreeding
piping plovers. Almost 90% of observations of roosting piping plovers at ten coastal
sites in southwest Florida were on inlet shorelines (Lott et al. 2009). Piping plovers were
among seven shorebird species found more often than expected (p = 0.0004; Wilcoxon
Scores test) at inlet locations versus non-inlet locations in an evaluation of 361
International Shorebird Survey sites from North Carolina to Florida (Harrington 2008).
Recent geographic analysis of piping plover distribution on the upper Texas coast noted
major concentration areas at the mouths of rivers and washover passes (low, sparsely
vegetated barrier island habitats created and maintained by temporary, storm-driven
water channels) into major bay systems (Arvin 2008). Earlier studies in Texas have
29