Comparison of bird community indices for riparian restoration planning and monitoring

The use of a bird community index that characterizes ecosystem integrity is very attractive to conservation planners and habitat managers, particularly in the absence of any single focal species. In riparian areas of the western USA, several attempts at arriving at a community index signifying a functioning riparian bird community have been made previously, mostly resorting to expert opinions or national conservation rankings for species weights. Because extensive local and regional bird monitoring data were available for Nevada, we were able to develop three different indices that were derived empirically, rather than from expert opinion. We formally examined the use of three species weighting schemes in comparison with simple species richness, using different definitions of riparian species assemblage size, for the purpose of predicting community response to changes in vegetation structure from riparian restoration. For the three indices, species were weighted according to the following criteria: (1) the degree of riparian habitat specialization based on regional data, (2) the relative conservation ranking of landbird species, and (3) the degree to which a species is under-represented compared to the regional species pool for riparian areas. To evaluate the usefulness of these indices for habitat restoration planning and monitoring, we modeled them using habitat variables that are expected to respond to riparian restoration efforts, using data from 64 sampling sites in the Walker River Basin in Nevada and California. We found that none of the species-weighting schemes performed any better as an index for evaluating overall habitat condition than using species richness alone as a community index. Based on our findings, the use of a fairly complete list of 30–35 riparian specialists appears to be the best indicator group for predicting the response of bird communities to the restoration of riparian vegetation

Comparison of bird community indices for riparian restoration planning and monitoring

The use of a bird community index that characterizes ecosystem integrity is very attractive to conservation planners and habitat managers, particularly in the absence of any single focal species. In riparian areas of the western USA, several attempts at arriving at a community index signifying a functioning riparian bird community have been made previously, mostly resorting to expert opinions or national conservation rankings for species weights. Because extensive local and regional bird monitoring data were available for Nevada, we were able to develop three different indices that were derived empirically, rather than from expert opinion. We formally examined the use of three species weighting schemes in comparison with simple species richness, using different definitions of riparian species assemblage size, for the purpose of predicting community response to changes in vegetation structure from riparian restoration. For the three indices, species were weighted according to the following criteria: (1) the degree of riparian habitat specialization based on regional data, (2) the relative conservation ranking of landbird species, and (3) the degree to which a species is under-represented compared to the regional species pool for riparian areas. To evaluate the usefulness of these indices for habitat restoration planning and monitoring, we modeled them using habitat variables that are expected to respond to riparian restoration efforts, using data from 64 sampling sites in the Walker River Basin in Nevada and California. We found that none of the species-weighting schemes performed any better as an index for evaluating overall habitat condition than using species richness alone as a community index. Based on our findings, the use of a fairly complete list of 30–35 riparian specialists appears to be the best indicator group for predicting the response of bird communities to the restoration of riparian vegetation

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms.This work was supported as a Science Innovation Project by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Science Innovation Program funding 2021–22 (project team: A.J.M., L.J.C., D.M.B., C.K.K., J.S.S. and L.S.). Support was also provided (to J.D.S, E.L.J., S.A.R., J.S.S., M.I.S., J.M.S., N.G.W.) from Australian Research Council SRIEAS grant SR200100005. P.C. and K.A.H. are supported by NERC core funding to the BAS Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation Team and Environment Office, respectively. L.R.P. and M.G. are supported by Biodiversa ASICS funding

Behavior-specific occurrence patterns of Pinyon Jays (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) in three Great Basin study areas and significance for pinyon-juniper woodland management.

The Pinyon Jay is a highly social, year-round inhabitant of pinyon-juniper and other coniferous woodlands in the western United States. Range-wide, Pinyon Jays have declined ~ 3-4% per year for at least the last half-century. Occurrence patterns and habitat use of Pinyon Jays have not been well characterized across much of the species' range, and obtaining this information is necessary for better understanding the causes of ongoing declines and determining useful conservation strategies. Additionally, it is important to better understand if and how targeted removal of pinyon-juniper woodland, a common and widespread vegetation management practice, affects Pinyon Jays. The goal of this study was to identify the characteristics of areas used by Pinyon Jays for several critical life history components in the Great Basin, which is home to nearly half of the species' global population, and to thereby facilitate the inclusion of Pinyon Jay conservation measures in the design of vegetation management projects. To accomplish this, we studied Pinyon Jays in three widely separated study areas using radio telemetry and direct observation and measured key attributes of their locations and a separate set of randomly-selected control sites using the U. S. Forest Service's Forest Inventory Analysis protocol. Data visualizations, principle components analysis, and logistic regressions of the resulting data indicated that Pinyon Jays used a distinct subset of available pinyon-juniper woodland habitat, and further suggested that Pinyon Jays used different but overlapping habitats for seed caching, foraging, and nesting. Caching was concentrated in low-elevation, relatively flat areas with low tree cover; foraging occurred at slightly higher elevations with generally moderate but variable tree cover; and nesting was concentrated in slightly higher areas with high tree and vegetation cover. All three of these Pinyon Jay behavior types were highly concentrated within the lower-elevation band of pinyon-juniper woodland close to the woodland-shrubland ecotone. Woodland removal projects in the Great Basin are often concentrated in these same areas, so it is potentially important to incorporate conservation measures informed by Pinyon Jay occurrence patterns into existing woodland management paradigms, protocols, and practices

Applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms