Monitoring Golden-Cheeked Warblers on Private Lands in Texas

Abstract A majority of North American breeding habitat for neotropical migrants exists on private lands, requiring monitoring strategies focused on habitat in these private holdings. We outline study designs and protocols using repeated presence–absence surveys across a gradient of patch sizes to develop a range-wide monitoring program for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) in Texas, USA. We surveyed 200–400 point-count locations across approximately 30 private properties annually from 2005 to 2008. We used data from our surveyed patches (n  =  147) and the Ψ (occupancy), p (detection), and γ  =  1 − ε parameterization to estimate patch dynamics and associated detection probabilities for golden-cheeked warblers. Patch size had a strong association with patch occupancy, and all patches >160 ha were predicted to be occupied. We found no evidence that large golden-cheeked warbler populations located on public lands in the vicinity of our study area influenced occupancy dynamics. We conducted simulations across a range of detection probabilities to evaluate potential sample sizes for both standard- and removal-based occupancy modeling. Simulations using parameter estimates from our analysis indicated that removal-based sampling is superior to standard sampling. Based on our results, surveying golden-cheeked warbler presence in oak–juniper (Quercus–Juniperus) patches under a removal modeling framework should be considered as one alternative for range-wide monitoring programs because patch-level monitoring would be necessary to estimate proportion of range occupied. Large contiguous patches are rare across the species' range; hence, conservation and management of the mosaic of smaller patches within a landscape context would be required for maintaining species viability. Thus, we recommend the identification of areas where smaller, contiguous patches represent a significant portion of the available habitat within the local landscape and targeting these areas for habitat maintenance and improvement.

[1]  C. S. Robbins,et al.  Managing and Monitoring Birds Using Point Counts: Standards and Applications , 1995 .

[2]  R. Peak.  FOREST EDGES NEGATIVELY AFFECT GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER NEST SURVIVAL , 2007 .

[3]  J Andrew Royle,et al.  Site Occupancy Models with Heterogeneous Detection Probabilities , 2006, Biometrics.

[4]  Graham Kalton,et al.  Sampling Rare Populations , 1986 .

[5]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis , 2002 .

[6]  R. N. Wilkins,et al.  Quantitative Relationships Among Golden-Cheeked Warbler Occurrence and Landscape Size, Composition, and Structure , 2006 .

[7]  C. Lauver,et al.  Testing a GIS Model of Habitat Suitability for a Declining Grassland Bird , 2002, Environmental management.

[8]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Synthesis: Thresholds in conservation and management , 2005 .

[9]  Anne Turner-Henson,et al.  Sampling Rare Populations: Strategies for Finding Subgroups for Health Surveys , 1991 .

[10]  K. Gaston,et al.  Occupancy-abundance relationships and sampling scales , 2000 .

[11]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE , 2002, Ecology.

[12]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[13]  J. Nichols,et al.  Inferences About Landbird Abundance from Count Data: Recent Advances and Future Directions , 2009 .

[14]  L. Gass,et al.  Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) , 1999 .

[15]  S. Hurlbert.  Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments , 1984 .

[16]  J. Lawton,et al.  Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: An appraisal of mechanisms , 1997 .

[17]  J. Nichols,et al.  A DOUBLE-OBSERVER APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITY AND ABUNDANCE FROM POINT COUNTS , 2000 .

[18]  J. Cornelius,et al.  Demographics of the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) on Fort Hood, Texas. , 1998 .

[19]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[20]  W. Thompson,et al.  TOWARDS RELIABLE BIRD SURVEYS: ACCOUNTING FOR INDIVIDUALS PRESENT BUT NOT DETECTED , 2002 .

[21]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort , 2005 .

[22]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Analysis and Management of Animal Populations: Modeling, Estimation and Decision Making , 2002 .

[23]  K. A. Austin,et al.  Modeling Habitat Occupancy of Orange-Crowned Warblers in Managed Forests of Oregon and Washington, USA , 2007 .

[24]  K. Pollock,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY AND SPECIES DETECTION PROBABILITY PARAMETERS FOR TERRESTRIAL SALAMANDERS , 2004 .

[25]  F. W. Gould,et al.  Texas plants: a check list and ecological summary. , 1962 .

[26]  D. Dearborn,et al.  POPULATION TRENDS OF THE ENDANGERED GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER AT FORT HOOD, TEXAS, FROM 1992–2001 , 2004 .

[27]  J. Cornelius,et al.  Response of golden-cheeked warblers (Dendroica chrysoparia) to wildfires at Fort Hood, Texas / , 2007 .

[28]  K. Gaston,et al.  Occupancy-abundance relationships and spatial distribution: A review , 2002 .

[29]  George R. Parker,et al.  Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern , 1992, Landscape Ecology.

[30]  D. Wolfe,et al.  The Golden-Cheeked Warbler: , 2012 .

[31]  N. Yoccoz.  Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence , 2006 .

[32]  D. Diamond,et al.  PREDICTING PRESENCE-ABSENCE OF THE ENDANGERED GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER (DENDROICA CHRYSOPARIA) , 2006 .