BIRD POPULATIONS - Birdpop.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ROBERT L. WILKERSON AND RODNEY B. SIEGELFIGURE 12. Results from the Modoc Plateau/Great Basin region of the 2006-2007 California Burrowing Owlsurvey. Shown are all 5-km x 5-km assigned to the region; in the case of this region, all blocks were classified asupland. The entire 2006-2007 survey area and the location of the Modoc Plateau/Great Basin region are shownin the inset.[26]
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF BURROWING OWLS IN CALIFORNIAexclusively within the Palo Verde Valley, and noowls detected elsewhere in the region, is ouractual pair count in the Palo Verde Valley: 179pairs (see Wilkerson and Siegel, in press, foradditional details).AGGREGATED STATEWIDE RESULTSAggregating results across all 2006-2007 surveyregions yields a “best estimate” of 9,298 pairs ofBurrowing Owls (Table 4). The population ishighly concentrated in the Imperial Valley(68.9% of the California population) and to alesser extent, the Southern Central Valley (12.0%of the statewide population) (Fig. 13). DeSante etal. (2007) reported very similar proportions ofthe estimated statewide population in 1991-1993in these two regions.Omitting the “new” survey regions (ModocPlateau/Great Basin , Northern Mojave/EasternSierra Nevada, Western Mojave, Eastern Mojave,and Sonoran Desert), the aggregated “bestestimate” for all regions that were previouslysurveyed in 1991-1993 is 8,526 pairs, 8% lowerthan the corresponding estimate generated from1991-1993 (Table 4). Much of the apparentdecline appears to be concentrated in tworegions: the Northern Central Valley (231 pairsin 1991-1993 to 12 pairs in 2006-2007), and theSouthern Central Valley (1,396 pairs in 1991-1993to 1,113 pairs in 2006-2007). Other regions withreduced “best estimates” between 1991-1993 and2006-2007 include the Middle Central Valley (-49pairs), San Francisco Bay Interior (-46 pairs),Southwestern Interior (-77 pairs), and theImperial Valley (-163 pairs, but the relativelyhigh absolute numbers make this unlikely to bea meaningful change). In contrast to the overallpattern of declines, our 2006-2007 “bestestimates” were higher than the corresponding1991-1993 estimates for three regions: CentralwesternInterior (+46 pairs), Southwestern Coast(+6 pairs), and Coachella Valley (+53 pairs).Because the statewide “best estimate” of thenumber of pairs is an aggregate of regionalextrapolated population estimates and regionalminimum counts there is no way to test thestatistical significance of the apparent declinebetween 1991-1993 and 2006-2007. However, wecan test for statistically significant change in ourpopulation estimates extrapolated only fromsurveys of randomly-selected blocks. DeSante etal. (2007) provided an extrapolated estimate of9,127 ± 1,243 pairs for their entire study area; our2006-2007 estimate extrapolated from randomlyselectedblocks across the same survey regions is8,128 ± 2,391 pairs (Table 4), a non-significant(F 1,710 = 0.0533, P = 0.817) reduction of 10.9%.Including the “new” survey regions, our 2006-2007 estimate extrapolated from randomlyselectedblocks is 9,187 ± 2,346 pairs (Table 4).Our “best estimate” for the same comprehensivearea is a very similar 9,298 pairs (Table 4).LAND OWNERSHIP AND HABITATS.Similar to the findings reported by DeSante et al.(2007), we found that the vast majority ofCalifornia’s breeding Burrowing Owls occur onprivate lands (Table 5). Small numbers were alsofound on lands managed by four federalagencies, California state government, and localmunicipalities (Table 5).The Burrowing Owls detected during oursurvey occupied a wide range of habitats,including natural grasslands, agricultural lands,and other human-modified areas (Table 6).Nearly one third of breeding sites were locatedon the banks of irrigation canals or otherconcrete or earthen water conveyance structures(Table 6).DeSante et al. (2007) reported a strongassociation between Burrowing Owl breedingsites and the presence of ground squirrels. Ourresults corroborated this finding, but alsorevealed that association to be far weaker forowls nesting along irrigation canals and otherwater conveyance structures (Table 6). Thisweaker association presumably stems from owlsnot having to depend on ground squirrels forburrow excavation along canal banks, whereearthen banks may be particularly easy toexcavate, and concrete-lined banks oftenprovide attractive nesting spaces between theconcrete lining and the underlying soil.OWL PERSISTENCE ON SURVEY BLOCKS OCCUPIEDDURING THE 1991-1993 SURVEYConsidering blocks surveyed during both 1991-1993 and 2006-2007, in which owls were detectedduring the first (1991-1993) survey (N = 149),we found that abundance significantly declined(mean difference = -2.68 ± 0.50; t = -5.37; df =148; P < 0.0001). The probability of detecting[27]
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 78 and 79:
JANNIK HANSEN, LARS HOLST HANSEN, N
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?