breeding productivity and conservation of great salt lake

Research on the Breeding Productivity Research on the Breeding Productivity Research on the Breeding Productivity, Research on the Breeding Productivity, Ecology and Behavior of Great Salt Lake Ecology and Behavior of Great Salt Lake

Shorebirds:Shorebirds:Shorebirds:Shorebirds:Results of the first 5 yearsResults of the first 5 years

John CavittJohn CavittDepartment of ZoologyDepartment of ZoologyWeber State UniversityWeber State University

Ogden, UT Ogden, UT

Primary Goal ‐maintain healthy, self‐sustaining populations

HOW?

Healthy population = productivity sufficient to balance

HOW?

y p p p yadult & juvenile mortality

2

l bl h dCentral problem exists when counts are used to assess population health –

populations may experience productivity problems and p p y p p y pyet go undetected because of immigration from healthy sources.

3

Shorebird Productivity

Nest

y

• Clutch size• Hatchability• # Young • Nesting success

Brood Period

• Young survival during parental care – up to fledgingfledging

4

Research ObjectivesResearch ObjectivesResearch ObjectivesResearch Objectives

•• Effects of predator removal on shorebird Effects of predator removal on shorebird Effects of predator removal on shorebird Effects of predator removal on shorebird nesting successnesting success

•• Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators•• Effects of land management and habitat on Effects of land management and habitat on

nesting successnesting successnesting successnesting success•• Brood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selection•• Effects of heavy metal contamination on Effects of heavy metal contamination on •• Effects of heavy metal contamination on Effects of heavy metal contamination on

shorebirdsshorebirds

ucce

ssfu

lof

Nes

ts S

ropo

rtio

n o

P

Figure 1 Comparison of waterfowl nesting success reported inFigure 1. Comparison of waterfowl nesting success reported inthe literature before (green bars) and after (tan bars)documented increases in raccoon populations.

Change in Predator C itCommunity Increased human activity, introduced species (carp), and landscape change affected predator community

Virtually absent from GSL prior to 1980’s

BEAR

OGBAY

SHORE

ANTELOPE ISLAND

FARM

SL SEWERISSR

SALTTIMPIE

3 – 15 plots located/site

10

All plots searched every 3 – 4 days

• Nests checked every 3 - 4 days

• Nest productivity data collected (CS, hatchability, # young to nest-leaving, nesting success) g )

• Nest fate

• Nest site nest plots characterized• Nest site, nest plots characterized

• 2007 brood survival collected

11

Eff t f d t lEff t f d t lEffects of predator removalEffects of predator removal

BEAR

OGBAOGBA

SHORANTE

SHOR

FARM

CANL

ISSR

SALT

ds

Rem

oved

f Pre

dato

rsN

umbe

r of

Tota

l

Figure 4 Number of mammalian predators removed each yearFigure 4. Number of mammalian predators removed each year (data from 2007 were unavailable at the time of this printing).

2005 Depredated 2006

ed N

ests

0 6

0.82005

0.8

1.0Depredated Deserted Flooded Fail Unknown

d N

ests

2006

ortio

n of

Fail

e

0.4

0.680 112

0.4

0.6 75 151 110 70 9

rtion

s of F

ailed

Prop

o

0.20.2Pr

opor

0.0BEAR FARM

0.0BEAR FARM ISSR SHORE SL SEWER

17

Reduced predator densities

*Control Total number of nests

Figure 5. % Daily survival (+ SE) of AMAV (A) and BNST (B) nests atsites with reduced predator densities and control sitessites with reduced predator densities and control sites.

Table 1. Effects of reduced predator densities on AMAV and BNST daily survival rate Mayfield nestingAMAV and BNST daily survival rate. Mayfield nesting success estimates are included below each DSR.

Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators

Bear River Migratory Bird RefugeJune 24, 2007June 24, 2007

4:09 am

22

Bear River Migratory Bird RefugeO – Line DikeO Line DikeJune 9, 2007 3:19 am

23

Identification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predatorsIdentification of nest predators

SPECIES SPECIES SITE SITE NEST FATENEST FATE REASONREASONSPECIES SPECIES SITE SITE NEST FATENEST FATE REASONREASONLBCULBCU BEARBEAR FAILFAIL RavenRavenLBCULBCU BEARBEAR SUCCESSSUCCESS HatchHatchAMAVAMAV BEARBEAR FAILFAIL RaccoonRaccoonAMAVAMAV BEARBEAR FAILFAIL Raccoon Raccoon AMAVAMAV FARMFARM FAIL FAIL RaccoonRaccoonAMAVAMAV FARMFARM FAIL FAIL DesertedDesertedAMAVAMAV FARMFARM SUCCESSSUCCESS HatchHatchBNSTBNST FARMFARM FAILFAIL D t dD t dBNSTBNST FARMFARM FAILFAIL DesertedDesertedMALLMALL BEARBEAR FAILFAIL Skunk and RaccoonSkunk and RaccoonGADWGADW BEARBEAR FAILFAIL SkunkSkunk

Effects of land managementEffects of land managementgg

Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management AreaArea

1.02American Avocets 2003

Rat

e

0.98

1.00

y S

urvi

val

0.94

0.96

Dai

ly

0.90

0.92

Distance from Dike (m) 0 100 200 300 400 500

0.88

Linear Regression F = 0.98; P = 0.360; R2 = 0.141


Rat

e

0.988

0.990

0.992

y S

urvi

val

0 982

0.984

0.986

Dai

ly

0.978

0.980

0.982

Distance from Dike (m)0 100 200 300 400 500

0.976

3rd Order Polynomial Regression F = 7.36; P = 0.042; R2 = 0.815


Rat

e

0.98

0.99

Surv

ival

0.96

0.97

Dai

ly

0.94

0.95

Distance from Dike (m)0 100 200 300 400 500

0.93

2nd Order Polynomial Regression F = 109.1; P < 0.001; R2 = 0.973

Emergent vegetation (Phragmites) increased from

25 ha to 130 ha

= 420% increase

34

Brood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selection

Brood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selectionBrood survival and habitat selection

BAND 84466179

TOTAL DISTANCE (m) 891.95

N DAYS 10N DAYS 10

DISTANCE/DAY (m) 89.20

POLYGON AREA (ha) 2.2287

Brood Brood survival survival and and habitat habitat sselectionelectionBrood Brood survival survival and and habitat habitat sselectionelection

BAND TOTAL DISTANCE ( ) N DAYS DISTANCE/DAY ( ) POLYGON AREA (h )BAND TOTAL DISTANCE (m) N DAYS DISTANCE/DAY (m) POLYGON AREA (ha)

84466136 447.16 3 149.05 1.2567

84466137 150.99 3 50.33 0.2003

84466138 224.07 6 37.35 0.1081

84466159 49.82 1 49.82 N/A

84466162 41.85 2 20.93 N/A

84466164 42.2 1 42.20 N/A

84466170 57 42 4 14 36 0 014684466170 57.42 4 14.36 0.0146

84466171 162.78 1 162.78 N/A

84466172 178.18 3 59.39 0.1652

84466173 376.53 2 188.27 N/A

84466174 8.94 1 8.94 N/A

84466175 95.16 3 31.72 0.0453

84466176 210.02 1 210.02 N/A

84466179 891 95 10 89 20 2 228784466179 891.95 10 89.20 2.2287

84466180 930.1 7 132.87 1.6602

84466181 50.65 2 25.33 N.A

Average Distance Moved / Day = 79 5 m/ Day = 79.5 m

Average Home Range g gSize = 1.94 ha

Effects of heavy metal contamination on Effects of heavy metal contamination on shorebirdsshorebirds

The problem -p• More than 100 years of mining have resulted

i t i ti i S lt L k V ll ifin contamination in Salt Lake Valley aquifer

Bingham Canyon Copper Mine

Lawsuit resulted in $35 milion remediation settlement

Jordan Valley Water District

• Construction of Reverse Osmosis Treatment Facility –produce +8000 acre-feet of drinking water/year

• Brine (wastewater = high in Se) pumped to Great Salt Lake

A h hAt high concentrations Se causes

• embryo malformation and mortality• chick and adult mortalitychick and adult mortality

Project ObjectivesProject Objectives

• Determine ambient concentrations of Se in Determine ambient concentrations of Se in water, sediment and in macroinvertebrates from each siteeach site

• Determine diet of AMAV & BNST at each study sitesite

SeSeSeSe

OGBAY

ANTELOPE ISLAND

SALT

MethodsMethodsMethodsMethods

•• Water, sediment and Water, sediment and macroinvertebratesmacroinvertebratescollected at each site from foraging areas.collected at each site from foraging areas.

•• Samples prepared Samples prepared for for SeSe analysis analysis Samples prepared Samples prepared for for SeSe analysis analysis


•• Eggs randomly collected from subset of nests at Eggs randomly collected from subset of nests at each siteeach site

•• Embryos dissected Embryos dissected examined and prepared for examined and prepared for yy p pp pSeSe analysisanalysis


•• Adults collected from each siteAdults collected from each site•• Dissected, stomach contents examined Dissected, stomach contents examined •• Blood and liver prepared for Blood and liver prepared for SeSe analysisanalysisBlood and liver prepared for Blood and liver prepared for SeSe analysisanalysis

35.03

L25.0

30.0

Se u

g/L

0 6

0.8

20.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

3 3

0.0

Antelope Island Ogden Bay Saltair

Median Median SeSe concentration from water samples at each foraging siteconcentration from water samples at each foraging sitedfdf((HH = 7.2, = 7.2, dfdf = 2, = 2, PP = 0.004)= 0.004)

40

50

5 AMAV blood Se concentrations (F2,14 = 2.276, P = 0.149)

Blood

Se u

g/g

20

30

4

5

S

0

10

0

Antelope Island SaltairOgden

Bay

25

305Liver

15

20

25

e ug

/g

5

5

AMAV liver Se concentrations (F2,14 = 3.79, P = 0.053)

5

10

15S 5

0

Antelope Island SaltairOgden

Bay

Egg Se Concentration

10

Egg Se Concentration

8

8b

Se ug/g

4

6

21a 16a

2

21a 16a

0

AntelopeIsland

OgdenBay

Saltairy

H = 15.85, df = 2, P = 0.001

Super‐simplified Conceptual ModelSe flowSe flow

12 26

1.56

12.26

0.292.26

(ppm)

Great Salt Lake Avian Productivity StudyGreat Salt Lake Avian Productivity Study

Utah Wetlands Utah Wetlands FoundationFoundation

North Davis County Sewer DistrictNorth Davis County Sewer District

45

35

40

45

( ug/

g)

30

35

Live

r Se

20

25

10

15

Blood Se (ug/g)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5

F1,18= 15.29, P = 0.001, r2 = 0.474; y = 7.37 + 0.422x

250

300

2003200420052006

AMAV

First nests initiated

mbe

r of N

ests

100

150

200First nests initiated

AMAV = April 10

Num

0

50BNST = April 20

Last nests initiated Julian Day of Nest Inititaion

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

120

2003 BNST

by June 29

of N

ests

60

80

100 200420052006Extreme date –

July 9, 2004

Num

ber

0

20

40

Julian Day of Nest Initiation80 100 120 140 160 180 200

e 1.0020042005

AMAV

viva

l Rat

e0.98

0.99

2005

Dai

ly S

urv

0 96

0.97

J li D t f N t I iti ti

110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

D

0.95

0.96

Julian Date of Nest Initiation

2004 – F = 10.5; df = 1,4; P = 0.032;

2005 – F = 3.9; df = 1, 6; P = 0.11

62

breeding productivity and conservation of great salt lake

Documents