BIRD POPULATIONS - Birdpop.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ROBERT L. WILKERSON AND RODNEY B. SIEGELcount of all owls seen (identified to age and sex,if possible), an estimate of the number ofbreeding pairs present, and standardized habitatinformation. The latter included information onvegetation community type and structure, landuse, distance to irrigation canals, localabundance of ground squirrels, and othervariables. Finally, observers provided a detailedassessment of how much of their block theywere actually able to survey adequately. In somecases this was
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF BURROWING OWLS IN CALIFORNIAsurveying one or more blocks during the 2006 or2007 field season. These volunteers spent over6,400 hr surveying blocks and completing dataforms. Their efforts were augmented by our fulltimecrews of field biologist technicians, wholargely focused their efforts in the new surveyregions, where few volunteers were available,and in the southern Central Valley, where thelarge number of historic breeding blockssurpassed the survey capacity of the local poolof volunteers.During our 2006-2007 efforts we were able tocomplete surveys at 453 of the 500 historicbreeding owl blocks identified prior to the startof the 2006 field season; 47 historic breedingblocks thus went unsurveyed. However, 24 ofthose unsurveyed historic breeding blocks weresurveyed but yielded no owl detections duringthe 1991-1993 survey. In other words, theoccupancy records were from before 1991-1993,and occupancy could not be confirmed duringthe 1991-1993 survey. Thus, only 26 historicblocks known to have owls during the 1991-1993survey went unsurveyed during 2006-2007.We completed surveys of 860 blocks during2006-2007. Of these, 444 were randomly selected,and 453 were historic breeding blocks (37 ofwhich were also randomly selected and weretreated as random blocks in our analysis).During the course of this survey, we documentedthe exact locations of 1,758 BurrowingOwl pairs, and have provided this informationto the California Department of Fish and Gamefor their conservation planning purposes.INDIVIDUAL REGIONSNORTHERN CENTRAL VALLEYWe surveyed 33 randomly-selected and 15historic breeding blocks in this region (Fig. 2).We detected no burrowing owls in the randomblocks and 10 pairs in the historic breedingblocks; 2 pairs were incidentally detectedoutside our targeted blocks. All pairs weredetected on lowland blocks in Tehama and Yubacounties.Our random-sample based populationestimate for this region is zero. Using ourcriteria stated earlier, the “best estimate” is 12pairs for the lowland subregion and zero forupland subregion. The number of BurrowingOwl pairs detected in the region declined onlymoderately, from 18 pairs to 12 pairs betweenthe 1991-1993 and 2006-2007 surveys, butbecause 11 pairs were found on randomlyselectedblocks during 1991-1993 (compared tono owls detected on randomly-selected blocksduring 2006-2007), DeSante et al. (2007)extrapolated their early 1990s findings toestimate that 231 pairs were present in theregion, a number greatly in excess of both ourestimate of zero pairs extrapolated from randomblocks only (χ 2 = 4.274, P = 0.039; Table 3) and1our “best estimate” of 12 pairs, reflecting theactual number of pairs we detected on all blockssurveyed (Table 4).MIDDLE CENTRAL VALLEYWe surveyed 71 randomly-selected blocks and128 historic breeding blocks in this region (Fig.3). Surveys of random blocks yielded 34 BurrowingOwl pairs, and surveys of historic breedingblocks yielded 348 pairs, for a total of 382 pairs.Substantial concentrations of owls were locatedin lowland areas of Yolo, Solano, Sacramento,Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties.However we found only two pairs in all ofStanislaus County, and detected only one pairincidentally in Merced County. We found noBurrowing Owls in the upland (foothill) blocksof western El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras,Tuolumne, and Merced counties.In the 59 randomly-selected lowland blockssurveyed, we found 34 owl pairs, yielding arandom-sample based estimate of 502 ± 209pairs. This estimate was greater than the totalnumber of pairs we actually found in thelowland subregion (34 pairs on randomlyselectedblocks plus 305 pairs on historicbreeding blocks), so it serves as our “bestestimate” for the upland subregion. No owlswere detected on randomly-selected uplandblocks anywhere in the region, so our randomsamplebased estimate for the upland subregionis zero pairs. However, we found 43 pairs onupland historic breeding blocks, so our “bestestimate” for the upland subregion is the actualnumber of pairs we found in upland blocks: 43pairs. Summing our estimate of 502 ± 209 pairsin the lowland subregion and our count of 43pairs on the upland blocks surveyed, ourestimate for the Middle Central Valley region is545 pairs, 8.2% fewer than the 594 pairs DeSanteet al. (2007) estimated to be present in the early1990s (Table 4).[9]
Page 1 and 2: BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global
Page 3 and 4: BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global
Page 6 and 7: ROBERT L. WILKERSON AND RODNEY B. S
Page 40 and 41: NIRANJAN DAS AND SUJATA DEORIincluy
Page 42 and 43: NIRANJAN DAS AND SUJATA DEORIprovid
Page 44 and 45: NIRANJAN DAS AND SUJATA DEORIpopula
Page 46 and 47: NIRANJAN DAS AND SUJATA DEORITABLE
Page 58 and 59: Bird Populations 10:56-64© The Ins
Page 60 and 61:
WETLAND BIRDS OF GHANAAvicennia afr
Page 62 and 63:
WETLAND BIRDS OF GHANATABLE 1. Data
Page 64 and 65:
WETLAND BIRDS OF GHANATABLE 2: Esti
Page 66 and 67:
WETLAND BIRDS OF GHANAATTUQUAYEFIO,
Page 68 and 69:
JANNIK HANSEN, LARS HOLST HANSEN, N
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global
Page 92 and 93:
Bird Populations 10:90-109© The In
Page 94 and 95:
DAVID J. ZIOLKOWSKI JR., KEITH L. P
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Bird Populations 10:110-113© The I
Page 114 and 115:
THE 2007 AND 2008 NORTH AMERICAN BR
Page 116 and 117:
Bird Populations 10:114-124© The I
Page 118 and 119:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2007on the pl
Page 120 and 121:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2007May, with
Page 122 and 123:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2007Remarks:
Page 124 and 125:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 200717. PITCH
Page 126 and 127:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2007+; Wester
Page 128 and 129:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2008gray Gnat
Page 130 and 131:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2008Warbler,
Page 132 and 133:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2008Source: W
Page 134 and 135:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2008Spotted T
Page 136 and 137:
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2008precipita
Page 138 and 139:
Bird Populations 10© The Institute
Page 140 and 141:
IS AVIAN BREEDING SUCCESS WEATHERIN
Page 142 and 143:
IS AVIAN BREEDING SUCCESS WEATHERIN
Page 144 and 145:
DAVE LEECH AND CARL BARIMOREFlycatc
Page 146 and 147:
Bird Populations 10:143-145Reprinte
Page 148 and 149:
WOODPIGEON JOINS THE GARDEN PREMIER
Page 150 and 151:
CHANGING THE GUARD AT UK BIRDTABLES
Page 152 and 153:
Bird Populations is an entirely ele
Page 154:
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global
show all

BIRD POPULATIONS - Birdpop.org

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?