Transcript Endangered Species I have Known - School of Environmental and

Endangered Species I have
Known
Marbled Murrelet
Mariana and Hawaiian Crows
Hawaiian Hawk
California Condor
Quality of Old Growth For
Marbled Murrelets
• Marbled Murrelet
– Seabird that uses old
growth for nesting
– Needs nest structures
– Needs protection from
predators
Marbled Murrelet Study
• Quantify Nest Predation
and Behavior of
Predators
• 5-year cooperative
study
– all relevant stakeholders
• 49 forested stands
– 12 types defined by 3
factors
• proximity to human
activity
• fragmentation
• stand structure
Simulating Murrelet Nests
• Ascend into canopy of suitable
murrelet nest trees with ropes
• Select suitable nest platform
– place egg or chick
– monitor a subsample with
cameras
Artificial Nest Experiments
• Eggs
– 60 x 40 mm, painted, wax coated
• Chicks
– Blk/Yel chickens, gutted, borax
• Motion Sensitive Transmitters
– Check nests every 2 days
Potential Predators at Artificial
Nests?
• Video and still cameras
(camera nests not used
in analysis)
• Calibrate photos with
marks on wax coated
eggs and chick
transmitters
Cameras Confirm Diversity and Avian
and Mammalian Predators in Canopy
Steller’s Jay
Crow
Gray Jay
Deer Mouse
N. Flying Sq.
Douglas Sq.
Chipmunk
Chicks
Eggs
Pie Graph 7
Deer
Mouse
Pie Graph 6
Gray
Jay
N. Flying
Squirrel
Steller’s
Jay
Jay
Chickadee
Woodpecker
N = 28
chickphoto: 4
chickphoto: 1
chickphoto: 0
chickphoto: 4
chickphoto: 10
eggphoto: 5
eggphoto: 3
eggphoto: 1
eggphoto: 1
eggphoto: 4
eggphoto: 1
N = 19
Research with
Arboreal Rodents
• Field Trials
•Live Pigeon
Nestlings
•Night Trials
•Realistic
• Captive Trials
•Food Type
•Food Size
•Effect of Hunger
R.A. Wood
(Max. # / 10-min. Point Count)
Number of Birds
Stand Complexity and Corvid
Abundance
2
• Diversity and
abundance increase
with canopy
complexity
American Crow
Common Raven
Gray Jay
Steller's Jay
1
0
Simple
Complex
Very
Complex
Structure of Forest Canopy
– Due to strong
association of Gray
Jays with old, very
complex forests
• F(2,44) = 12.8, P < 0.001
MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 0.7
MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 1.11
2222
r2 = 0.45
2
r = .45
P<0.001
2020
22
Days before nest was preyed on
before nest was preyed on
Stand Complexity, Corvid Abundance
and Predation
r2 = 0.36
Days 1818
Before
1616
20
Nests
Preyed 1414
Upon
18
1212
16
1010
8
14
8
0
SimNrCo
MTCVIDPT
vs TIMEPRED: 0.7
Simple
SimNrFr Far Contiguous
ComFarCo
SimFarFr
Simple
Far Fragmented
ComFarFr
SimNrCo Near Contiguous
Simple
ComNrCo
SimNrFr
ComNrFrNear Fragmented
Simple
OGFarCo
ComFarCo
Complex
Far Contiguous
OGFarFr
ComFarFr
Complex
Far Fragmented
OGNrFr
MTCVIDPT vs TIMEPRED: 1.29
ComNrCo
Complex
Near Contiguous
ComNrFr
Complex
WA Stands byNear
LandscapeFragmented
Class Regr
OGFarCo
Very
Complex Far Fragmented
OGFarFrComplex Far Contiguous
Very
OGNrCoComplex Near Fragmented
Very
OGNrFr Complex Near Contiguous
Very
0
11
22
Number of corvids per point
Number
of Corvids per Point
Matrix of Regenerating Forest
50m
100m
200m
Proportion of Nests Surviving
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Human Activity Center in Matrix
1.0
50m
100m
200m
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Days Since Nest Was Placed In Field
Edge Effects are affected
by landscape
– Predation is slightly slower
and independent of distance
from the forested stand’s
edge (P = 0.62) when the
surrounding matrix is young
forest
– Predation is rapid and
dependent on distance from
the forest edge (P = 0.05)
when the forest abuts a
human use area
(campground, small town,
etc.)
Contiguous
Young
Forest
Interface
Between
Contiguous
Old growth
And young
forest
Days to predation for eggs
(the darker the color the lower the
predation)
Lowest Predation where
landscape is not patchy, edges
are between young forest and old
growth, and forest patches are
predominantly of a single type
Days to predation =
8.04 – 8.16 landscape patch density at 5km +
1.10 landscape contrast weighted edge density
at 2km
– 10.31 Shannon-Weaver evenness index at
2km
(R2 = 0.27)
One of the last of its breed
Decline of ‘Alala in the Wild
Number of 'Alala
1200
1000
800
?
600
400
200
0
Current Population:
?
?
Listed as
Endangered
(Priority 2)
1967
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
3 0
Strategies for Recovery
• Identify and Remove
Limiting Factors
• Manipulate Wild and
Captive Pairs for
Maximum Population
Growth
• Restore Population to
Historical Range
Percentage Surviving
Survival of Released ‘Alala
100
10
80
60
40
9
7 Survivors
Returned to
Captivity
7
10
5
12
14
20
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Mortality of Released ‘Alala
(N=21 Deaths)
Toxoplasmosis
Bacterial (Erysipelas) +
Toxoplasmosis
Fungal (Basidiomycete) +
Toxoplasmosis
Hawaiian
Hawk
Predation
Unknown
Mongoose Predation +
Toxoplasmosis
Col 1: 8
Col 1: 3
Col 1: 1
Col 1: 1
Col 1: 1
Conflicts Among Endangered
Species
Number of Alala in Wild
1200
1000
30
?
25
800
20
?
600
15
?
400
10
200
5
0
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
Year
1980
2000
Number of Alala in Captivity
A Century of Change
Island Paradise?
Declines in Aga
3000
Guam
Rota
Number of Aga
2500
2000
?
1500
1000
500
0
1940
Listed as
Endangered
(Priority 2)
1984
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Agents of Decline
• Brown Tree Snake
• Rats, Monitor Lizards,
Drongos
• Allee Effects
• Environmental
Stochasticity
– typhoons
• Infertility
• Homesteading, Tourism
Mean (SE) expenditures ($)
Ignoring Islands
6x106
Mainland species
Island species
5x106
4x106
3x106
2x106
1x106
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
Continued
Extinction?
‘Alala
Aga
Recovery
• Outline of recovery actions needed within
60 days
• Recovery Plans developed by Recovery
Team for the Regional Manager
• Prioritization of species (add C for conflict)
Monotypic Genus
Species
Subspecies
High Risk
High
Low
Threat
Threat
1
4
2
5
3
6
Moderate Risk
High
Low
Threat Threat
7
10
8
11
9
12
Low Risk
High
Low
Threat Threat
13
16
14
17
15
18
5
Expenditures [thousands (000)]
1994
4
3
2
1
• Annual
Expenditures do
Not Follow
Priorities (Restani
0
Expenditures [log thousands (000)]
priority vs
vs logtot92
logtot93
5
1995
4
3
and Marzluff 2001)
2
1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Highest
12
14
16
Lowest
Priority rank
18
Why Aren’t Priorities Followed?
• Congressional earmarking
– takes part of Service budget and stipulates it to be
spent on particular species
• Allure of sexy species
– high visibility, good PR, good chance of recovery
• Lawsuits
– For sexy species with public appeal
• Poor Coordination
– Conservation of species in one part of its range may
not offset conservation in less important region
• Plans are not kept up to date
– priorities may no longer be valid
Effect of Earmarking
• 1994
– total recovery budget for usfws = 29.55 million
– Earmarked portion was 10.392 million (35%)
• Only 28% of the earmarks were for species ranked
as 1 or 2 on the priority list
• A few sexy big winners
–
–
–
–
–
Peregrine (900K) rank = 9
Condor (600K) rank = 4C
Wolves (1.6 mill) rank =3-5C
Manatee (500K) rank = 5C
Spotted Owls (2.35 mil) rank = 9C
Wide-ranging Species Benefit
From Not Following Priorities
Mean expenditures (log thousand $)
5
4
3
logsqkm vs Residual
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Range size (log km2)
6
7
8
Things are Different Down Under
(Endangered Birds in Australia; Garnett et al. 2003)
Status Of The California Condor
And Efforts To Achieve Its Recovery
• A report from the AOU Committee
on Conservation, California Condor
Blue Ribbon Panel (subcommittee)
• A Joint Initiative of The AOU and
Audubon California
• Funded by The National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and private
donors
• Panel Members: Jeffrey Walters
(chair), Scott Derrickson, Michael
Fry, Susan Haig, John Marzluff,
Joseph Wunderle
• Assisted By: Brock Bernstein,
Karen Velas
Photo by Sue Haig
Pre-assessment, Site Visits, Interviews, Literature, Comments
• Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, The Peregrine Fund
World Center For Birds of Prey (Boise), Oregon Zoo
• Hopper Mountain and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuges,
Vermillion Cliffs (Arizona, TPF), Big Sur (Ventana Wildlife Society)
and Pinnacles National Monument
•
Bob Risebrough, Chris Barr, Joseph Brandt, Diane Elam, Jesse Grantham, Paul Henson, Michaela Koenig, Marge
Kolar, Ken McDermond, Ivett Plascencia, Richard Posey, Mike Stockton, Marc Weitzel, Ed Lorentzen, Ron Jurek,
Dale Steele, Art Gaffrey, Kathy Sullivan, Tom Cade, Eddie Feltes, Bill Heinrich, Grainger Hunt, Peter Jenny, Lindsay
Oaks, Chris Parish, Cal Sandfort, Randy Townsend, Rick Watson, Joseph Burnett, Kelly Sorenson, Jim Petterson,
Scott Scherbinski, Alacia Welch, Don Janssen, Mike Mace, David Remlinger, Bruce Rideout, Don Sterner, Mike
Wallace, Mike Clark, Cathleen Cox, Chandra Davis, Leah Greer, Curtis Ing, Susie Kasielke, John Lewis, Janna
Wynn, Estelle Sandhaus, Jane Heartline, David Shepardson, Shawn St. Michael, David Moen, Tony Vechio, Mike
Best, Bob Stine, Don Geivet, Steve Thompson, Noel Snyder, Cynthia Stringfield, Kathy Ralls, Lloyd Kiff, Allan Mee,
Keith Day, Jim Parrish, Nancy Sandburg, Steve Ferry, Don Smith, Eduardo Peters, Michael Moore, Brian Sharp,
Tice Supplee, Dave Clendenen, Jan Hamber, Bill Toone
The Condor Recovery Program Has Reached A Crossroads
• Captive breeding and release
has brought the condor from
22 birds and extirpation from
the wild to 300+ birds and
150+ wild birds in two
decades
– 4 breeding facilities
– Releases southern and central
California, Arizona, Baja in
Mexico
• Condors survive in the wild
only through constant and
costly human assistance and
intervention
Figure from Wallace et al. 2007 California Condor Master Plan
The program is caught between the financial and logistical pressures
required to maintain an increasing number of condors in the wild and the
environmental problems that preclude establishment of naturally
sustainable, free-ranging populations
The Bottom Line: Get The Lead Out
• Conclusion: condors suffer lead poisoning from ingestion
of spent ammunition sufficiently frequently to raise
mortality rates well above those required for
sustainability
– Evidence has become overwhelming, occurs at all release sites
– Voluntary programs with excellent compliance, local regulations unlikely to
reduce contamination to near zero, which is what is required
– Population increase is not sustainable, current populations are not viable
– Effects on human health, other scavengers are possible
• Recommendation: USFWS head effort to
replace lead ammunition with non-lead
alternative ammunitions nationally, or
minimally within condor range
Photo Courtesy of The Peregrine Fund
Hunting Good,
Lead Bad
Photo by Anna Fuentes
• Conclusion: Hunters are the dominant predators
within condor’s range and are important source of
food for condors
• Recommendation: Eliminating lead threat should not
be accomplished by reduction in hunting, but by
replacement of lead ammunition with non-lead
alternatives. Hunters should be made aware of their
importance to condors
Cascading Effects Of Lead
• Conclusions: Lead is the ultimate source of other
problems: condors are provided with supplemental food
at fixed sites to reduce exposure to lead and so birds
can be trapped, tested and treated for lead poisoning.
• Supplemental food decreases lead exposure, but
interferes with normal wide-ranging foraging behavior,
affects time and energy budgets, affects other
behaviors.
– Yet unclear whether condors can subsist without subsidies on modern
landscapes
• Recommendation:
Supplemental feeding must
continue until lead problem
solved, but encourage birds to
forage more widely to learn
about the capacity of condors to
become self-sufficient foragers
on current landscapes
Photo courtesy of USFWS
We Bad
• Conclusions: Supplemental
feeding may promote
development of inappropriate
behavior
• Great progress made in refining
captive-rearing and release
techniques to produce better
behavior, inappropriate behavior
no longer impediment to
successful reintroduction although
still occurs
• Parent-rearing generally more
effective than puppet-rearing,
latter produces greater quantity of
birds for release
Photo Courtesy of USFWS
• Recommendations: Continue emphasis on parentrearing while demand for birds remains low, quality
more important than quantity
• Continue development puppet-rearing, improve
rearing and release techniques by making them
more closely resemble natural processes rearing and
socialization
– Endorse effort evaluate puppet-rearing and group socialization
techniques in Baja California release, encourage similar
experiment parent-reared and parent-socialized birds if
opportunity arises new release area
• Continue close integration between captive and field
facilities in managing behavior
• Once lead issue resolved, release established
breeding pairs, remaining old birds from original wild
population
– Knowledge of latter could be invaluable to life skills of younger
birds once they are no longer dependent on humans
Talking Trash
• Conclusions: Successful nesting in southern
California is contingent upon intensive nest
monitoring because of the microtrash problem
• Most promising approaches to problem are cleaning
up trash, returning offending adults to captivity for
aversive training, promoting more natural foraging
patterns
– Latter may not reduce feeding of microtrash by breeders with
tradition of such behavior
 Recommendation: Continue to
clean up trash, conduct
experiments with aversive training
Photo courtesy of USFWS
Time To Reorganize
Partner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Los Angeles Zoo
San Diego Wild Animal Park
The Peregrine Fund
Annual
Rearing
Expenditur Facility
e
$857,000
no
$573,000
$1,479,000
$1,520,000
*
Ventana Wildlife
$244,000
*IncludesSociety
$394,000 in earmarked funds through
USFWS.
Pinnacles National Monument (Park Service) $500,000
Oregon Zoo
$172,000
Release Site
yes
yes
yes
Bitter Creek,
Hopper
Mountain
none
Baja
Arizona
no
no
yes
Big Sur
Pinnacles
none
• Conclusions: Structure of program reflects past rather than current or
future conditions, reorganization will improve effectiveness
• Central elements = Recovery Team, field working group, Coordinator
– Recovery Team too large, resembles stakeholder group in lacking independent
scientists outside the program
– Field working group highly effective
– USFWS program including Coordinator housed refuge office associated site first
releases, but now these refuges only fraction range southern California birds,
Coordinator monitors program spanning 2 countries, 3 USFWS regions.
• Establish USFWS Condor
Recovery Office
 Recommendations:
Reorganize to better
reflect current and future
circumstances
– Condor Recovery Coordinator
handles basic programmatic
coordination
– Condor Research and Monitoring
Coordinator (USFWS or USGS
staff scientist)
– House in Sacramento regional
office, report to Deputy or Assistant
Regional Director
• Establish Recovery
Implementation Team
– Comprised organizations raising,
rearing, releasing, and monitoring
condors
– Modeled after field working group
• Establish Science Advisory Team
– Small, scientifically focused,
advisory group composed largely
of independent scientists outside
of the condor program
– Disband Recovery Team
• Form a Policy Advisory Team
– Comprised of leaders of partner
organizations
– Includes Coordinator.
Research And Data
• Conclusion: Current contribution research insufficient. Although
there is effective feedback between monitoring and management,
adaptive management framework that includes research not evident
• Recommendation: Presence Research and Monitoring Coordinator
and Science Advisory Team should elevate research. Adopt formal
adaptive management approach that includes research to address
key issues
• Conclusion: Problems with standardization, management and
ownership data seriously impede effectiveness of the program
• Recommendation: As interim measure, hire data manager/statistician
– Oversee existing data, assist Research and Monitoring
Coordinator with standardization data collection, reporting,
storage
– Summarize extant data for review and evaluation
– Develop standardized databases to be used throughout program
Population Structure and Current and Future Release Sites
• Conclusion: As numbers increase and birds range more widely,
structure of overall population becomes important question. There is
no plan for metapopulation development and conservation of species
range wide (e.g., optimum distribution of release sites)
• Recommendation: Assess utility current and future release sites on
metapopulation scale to develop range-wide plan to manage
population structure and viability.
– Do not open new release sites until lead issue resolved.
• Conclusion: Field staffing southern California release site operated
by USFWS is insufficient. Monitoring requirements there exceed
those at other release sites, yet fall to small number of temporary
employees, in contrast to large number permanent staff at other sites
• USFWS should either support adequate number of permanent staff
or focus support on recovery coordination and find partners willing to
adequately staff southern California site
– Consider site in Sierras as alternative, especially for release of 4
remaining condors originally captured from the wild once lead
issue resolved
Reaching Out
Photo Courtesy of USFWS
• Conclusions: Outreach programs are essential to condor recovery.
Program partners active locally, but look to USFWS for assistance
and leadership at national level.
• Extensive outreach effort to rally public support for replacement lead
ammunition, emphasizing human health and condors, is urgent need
• Recommendation: USFWS provide more leadership in outreach at
national level, especially on lead issue
Other Issues
• Conclusion: Feeding on marine mammals is positive development,
but may result accumulation contaminants such as DDT, PCBs
• Recommendation: Vigorous investigation impact contaminants on
reproduction among central California birds
• Conclusion: Intensive monitoring of released birds is essential
– Currently necessary to reduce mortality due to lead poisoning
– Important to detect and treat inappropriate behavior quickly
– In southern California critical to nesting success currently
– Once current problems are solved, monitoring will be needed to
track population dynamics, foraging patterns and dispersal
• Recommendation: Continue demographic, behavioral monitoring
– Continue current monitoring intensity until lead, microtrash issues
resolved
– Integrate monitoring into adaptive management framework in
order to learn about emerging issues such as foraging capabilities
and connections between populations.
• Recommendation: Continuing veterinary coordinator position to
facilitate information transfer on topics such as vaccines and
procedures
A Vision For The Future
• Two decades ago condors were extirpated from the
wild and nearly extinct, task of recovering them was
so daunting as to seem hopeless.
• Today condors have been brought back from brink of
extinction and returned to nature. The lead problem
has created an impasse, but it is not insoluble.
• New challenges will arise as condors become more
independent of humans and range more widely, but
they can be faced.
A Vision For The Future
• We can imagine that recovery of the
California Condor, once almost inconceivable,
could become a reality.