Brack, Jr, Virgil

Cable, Ted T.

Holmes, Virgil R.

English

Open Access Journals at IU Indianapolis

Avifauna as Indicators of Habitat Quality in Some Wetlands of Northern IndianaVirgil R. Holmes'WAPORA, Inc., 5700 Hillside AvenueCincinnati, Ohio 45233Ted T. CableDepartment of ForestryKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506Virgil Brack, Jr.WAPORA, Inc., 5700 Hillside AvenueCincinnati, Ohio 45233IntroductionWetlands are among the most vulnerable and threatened of natural habitats.Drainage and filling destroy countless acres each year. In Indiana thousands of acresare destroyed each year and it is estimated that over 80% of the state's original wetlandshave been lost in the past 100 years (Cable, 1985). Wetlands and their associated plantand water regimes are among the most productive wildlife habitats of all landforms(Odum, 1971; Toburen and Windell, 1977). The wetlands transition between terrestrialand aquatic habitats is unique and biologically rich. This compliment of wetland depen-dent species includes many vulnerable birds. Five of 6 bird species extirpated fromIndiana bred in wetlands and 15 nongame birds proposed for classification as endangered,threatened, or of special concern are wetland dependent.Wetland habitats are not easily replaced. Weller (1978) suggests that the creationof wetland habitats from previously non-wetland areas generally results in areas withoverall reduced species richness. Logically the rare and specialized plants and animalswill suffer most. The uniqueness and irreplaceability of wetlands and other wildlifehabitats has fostered the need for techniques to evaluate wildlands.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted the first comprehensive in-ventory of wetlands and their importance as wildlife habitat (Shaw and Fredine, 1956).This was followed by other inventories and assessment methods including: "Classificationof Wetlands and Deep-Water Habitats of the United States" (Cowardin et al., 1977);The Canadian Wildlife Service Classification System (Peret, 1975); Ecological Plan-ning and Evaluation Procedures (Hickman, 1974); Habitat Evaluation Procedures (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976); Environmental Evaluations Using Birds and theirHabitats (Graber and Graber, 1976); and A Method for Wetland Functional Assess-ment (Adamus and Stockwell, 1983).With the variety of habitat assessment methods available, any new procedure mustprovide viable improvements or alternatives. Many procedures suffer from such prob-lems as: cumbersomeness, excessive training requirements before implementation, timeconsumptiveness, and a limited range of application. The method presented here con-tains the integral features of many sophisticated evaluation procedures, but it circumventsthese problems. The key is simplicity. Simplicity is stressed because it avoids the majorshortcoming of many methods currently used.The ProcedureThis technique employs the major concepts of Graber and Graber (1976) assess-'Current address: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover,Delaware 19903.523524 Indiana Academy of Science Vol. 95 (1986)ment method. Like Graber and Graber (1976), birds alone are used as indicators ofhabitat quality. Birds are used because they are conspicuous and occur in nearly everytype of habitat. Graber and Graber (1976) validified the use of birds (or any othersingle faunal group) to serve as an indicator of general biological richness.To initiate the evaluation, each habitat type and acreage is determined using aerialphotographs, maps, or field measurements. For wetlands, National Wetlands Inven-tory (NWI) maps prepared using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) classifica-tion system (Cowardin et al. 1979) are recommended.A field survey must be conducted to assess the avifauna composition of eacharea if this information is not available. Field surveys are best conducted in June orJuly to reduce the likelihood of encountering migrants and because birds are vocaland more responsive to prerecorded tapes (Cable, 1985). Multiple trips and occasionalnight observations may enhance the detection of less conspicuous species, but are rarelya necessity. Although a relatively complete species list is required, it is both expedientand acceptable to limit observation time. If more than one area is being assessed theremust be consistency in the time spent if the data are to be comparable. Only birdspecies which are wetland dependent are used in the assessment calculations. UnlikeGraber and Graber (1976) this allows the inclusion of species which depend on wetlandsbut do not nest there.This method is predominantly qualitative. The diversity of species is the majorconcern, although numbers of individuals may be useful for comparisons outside themethod. Like Graber and Graber (1976) base values are assigned to wetland speciesbased on the state's population of that species, and the relative specificity of the speciesfor that habitat. Species points are assigned as follows: (1) species with a state breedingpopulation of 50,000 or more birds = 10 points; (2) species with 10,000 - 49,999 birds= 20 points; (3) species with 2,500 - 9,999 birds = 40 points; (4) species with 500- 2,499 birds = 100 points; (5) species with less than 500 nesting birds in the stateare in a special category to be considered above and beyond any numerical value,and (6) species found only in a single habitat have their point values doubled. Ac-cidentals with regard to region or habitat type, migrants, and exotics, are excludedfrom calculations.Breeding bird population estimates frequently can be made by qualified or-nithologists or "birders" familiar with the state or geographic area of consideration.Breeding bird atlases are becoming available in many states and may provide an ex-cellent source for determining breeding bird populations.The calculations necessary for completing the habitat analysis are listed below.It may be helpful to refer to Tables 1 and 2 in the following Method in Practice sec-tion. 1) Determine the acreages of areas being assessed. 2) For each area, list the wetlanddependent species observed. 3) Next to each species, list that species specific pointvalue using three columns (one column for species utilizing a base value only; anothercolumn for species restricted to that habitat type and receiving a doubled point value;and the last column for special species, which are not assigned a point value). 4) Addthe individual species points to determine the total species points for each area. 5)Calculate the average species index by dividing the total species points by the numberof species. This reflects the quality of habitat with regard to species composition. Areaswith a greater ratio of rare to common species or a greater ratio of stenoecious toeuryecious species will have a higher average species index. 6) The final calculationyields the faunal index, obtained by dividing the total species points for each areaby the common log of the acres of each habitat. (Never use a divider smaller thanthe common log of 20 acres (1.30103), regardless of how small the acreage is, becauseit disproportionately increases the derived value.) The wetlands can now be rankedusing the calculated faunal index values, with the higher index values representingZoology 525wetlands of higher quality. After this is completed, the presence or absence of specialspecies, those with state populations of less than 500 individuals, should be considered.Although they do not add to the point value of an area they will usually be a majorconsideration of the assessment. The faunal index is an indicator of habitat qualitybecause it reflects not only the number of species present but the relative importanceof the species composition with regard to rarity, and it expresses this value with referenceto acreage. For example, an area with 3 restricted species totalling 60 points wouldhave a greater faunal index than an area equal in size with 6 species totalling 60 points.If species numbers and point values are equal, an area with less acreage would havea higher faunal index because the species points per unit acreage would be greater.The Method in PracticeEight northern Indiana wetlands were assessed using our assessment technique,including: Big Chapman Lake, Little Chapman Lake, Heron Lake, Pisqah Marsh,Snake and Greider Lakes, Kiser Lake, Center Lake, and Lake Manitou. Acreages,determined from 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps ranged from77 to 436 acres (Table 1). Thirty-two wetland dependent bird species were observed.The largest number of species was seen at Little Chapman Lake.Table 1. Faunal index values derived using this method for selected Indiana wetlands.Dependent Special Species Species Common Log FaunalArea Acres Species Species Points Index of Acres IndexLittle ChapmanLake 88 23 4 1220 53.0 1.94 627Pisgah Marsh 153 20 3 1240 62.0 2.18 568Center Lake 220 22 1 1310 59.5 2.34 559Lake Manitou 436 22 1 1300 59.1 2.64 493Kiser Lake 138 20 2 1010 50.5 2.14 472Heron Lake 130 12 640 53.3 2.11 303Snake & GreiderLake 77 7 510 72.9 1.89 270Big ChapmanLake 157 13 2 490 37.7 2.20 223Base point values were assigned to each species from population information pro-vided in Mumford and Keller (1984) and from the experiences and knowledge of oneof the authors (TTQ. Table 2, lists the species observed at each of the wetlands assessed,and the species specific assignment of point values. Total species points ranged from490 points for Big Chapman Lake to 1310 points for Center Lake, but the averagespecies index was highest for Snake and Greider Lakes and lowest for Big ChapmanLake (Table 2). The faunal index was highest for Little Chapman Lake, followed indecreasing order by Pisqah Marsh, Center Lake, Lake Manitou, Kiser Lake, HeronLake, Snake and Greider Lakes, and Big Chapman Lake (Table 1).It should be noted however that there were seen a number of species of specialconcern. These "red flags" can significantly alter the importance of the wetlands inwhich they occur. Cable (1985) ranked the same wetlands, in decreasing order of im-portance, as Lake Manitou, Little Chapman Lake, Pisqah Marsh, Center Lake, KiserLake, Big Chapman Lake, Heron Lake, and Snake and Greider Lakes due to thepresence of these species of special concern. Specifically, Cable (1985) ranked LakeManitou as the most valuable because it contained American bitterns. The other areas526 Indiana Academy of Science Vol. 95 (1986)Table 2. Birds observed in eight Indiana wetlands and their associated species indexvalues.SPECIES INDEX VALUESSPECIES BASE RESTRICTED SPECIALXBC1LC HL PM SG KL CL LMPied-billed grebe —Least bittern — 80 — 3 9 1 1 11American bittern — — X 1Black-crowned night-heron — — X 2 1Green-backed heron 20 — — I 3 19 1 16 19Great blue heron — 200 — 15 6 1 6 2 13 7 9Sandhill crane — — X 1Canada goose — 80 — 7 6 2 6 3 9Mallard — 40 — 8 2 3 8 7 10 20Blue-winged teal — 80 — 7 10 3 12Ruddy duck — — X 1Wood duck 20 — — 2 13 2 15 8 7 20King rail — — X 1Virginia rail — 80 — 2 11 22 7 3 31Sora — 80 — 13 6 21 1 7 3 6Common moorhen — 200 — 2 1American coot — 80 — 2 4 30Killdeer 10 — — 3 4 3Spotted sandpiper — 80 — 1 2Ring-billed gull — — X 1Northern harrier — — X 1Belted kingfisher 20 — — 1 1 2 1Willow flycatcher — 40 — 9 7 5 9 16Alder flycatcher — — X 1 1 2Tree swallow 20 — — 3 4 1 5 2 14 1 22Marsh wren — 80 — 23 3 22 3 1 46 20Sedge wren — 80 — 2 6Veery — 200 — 7 1 2Yellow warbler — 40 — 16 35 3 23 7 31 24Common yellowthroat 10 — — 7 38 2 11 1 9 24 43Swamp sparrow — 40 — 27 28 2 27 3 9 23 61Red-winged blackbird 10 — — 51 84 32 74 25 62 121BC = Big Chapman Lake, LC = Little Chapman Lake, HL = Heron Lake, PM = Pisgah Marsh, SG = Snake & GreiderLakes, KL = Riser Lake, CL = Center Lake, LM = Lake Manitouwere also ranked according to the presence of special concern species. These twoassessments are however not incompatible. Instead they provide an example of thesystems flexibility for special treatment of those species of greatest importance.DiscussionThe Indiana wetlands example demonstrates the ease of employment of this method.Most assessment techniques require many times more effort to arrive at comparablevalues. For example, the FHWA wetland assessment method requires mastery of twovolumes, over 300 pages of text, before any study can be initiated. It also requiresa team of specialists, including a hydrologist, a botanist, a fisheries biologist, anda wildlife biologist visit each site and answer 153 questions. Although this methodologyinterrelates a much greater diversity of wetland functions, we do not believe that thevalue derived for wildlife habitat is substantially better than that derived using ourmethod. Specifically, the great number of questions increases the likelihood of mistakesand increases the difficulty in locating mistakes once made. The final value derivedusing FHWA method ranges from very low to very high values which are rather am-Zoology 527biguous considering the time, expense, and expertise required to obtain them. Ourmethod, takes considerably less time and yields a numerical value which can be usedto rank the areas assessed. The Graber and Graber (1976) method, though not as timeor labor intensive as the FHWA method, is nevertheless quite cumbersome becauseof several calculations that must be made and prerequisite values (such as the percentacreage of a particular habitat in the state) are often difficult to acquire. The methodwas also designed for Illinois and to adapt it to other areas requires inordinate efforts.Although the FHWA, the Graber and Graber (1976) method, and other complextechniques are important habitat assessment methods, their cumbersomeness, ambiguity,and extensive time requirements (which all lead to increased costs) limit their applicability.In contrast, our method provides a simple, straight forward, and cost efficient alternative.Other ApplicationsBecause our assessment method relies totally on the easily observed biology ofan area, rather than upon calculations or data manipulations, it can easily be adaptedfor evaluation of any habitat in which birds are an important community component.If, for example, an oak-hickory forest is to be evaluated, the only modification fromthe wetland scheme presented is to identify the avifauna dependent on that habitatand use the appropriate species values. The method can be easily adapted to evaluatehabitats for a specific interest group. For example, duck habitats can be assessed byincluding only ducks in the list of species for each habitat and completing the calcula-tion. Habitat for specific target species, or migratory species can also be evaluated.The flexibility and adaptability of this assessment method requires that the evaluatorprovide the frame of reference from which the final values are obtained. The habitatassessed, the observed species compliment, and the source of base values must be defined.If these are done, this habitat assessment method both complements previously ex-isting techniques and provides a viable alternative method.Literature Cited1. Adamus, P. R. and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland functionalassessment: Volume I. Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S. Departmentof Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 181 pp.2. Adamus, P. R. and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland functionalassessment: Volume II. FHWA assessment method. U.S. Department of Transpor-tation, Federal Highway Administration, 138 pp.3. Cable, T. T. 1985. An inventory of the avifauna of selected northern Indianawetlands. Indiana Audubon Quart., 63: In Press.4. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1977. Classificationof wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States (an operational draft).U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service, 100 pp.5. Graber, J. W. and R. R. Graber. 1976. Environmental evaluations using birdsand their habitats. Biological Notes No. 97, Illinois Natural History Survey, 39 pp.6. Hickman, G., 1974. Ecological planning and evaluation procedures. Joint Federal- State - Private Conservation Organization Committee, U.S.D.I., Fish and WildlifeService, 269 pp.7. Mumford, R. E. and C. E. Keller. 1984. The Birds of Indiana. Indiana Univer-sity Press, Bloomington, 376 pp.8. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders Company,Philadelphia, 574 pp.9. Peret, N. G. 1975. Canadian wildlife service. In: Proceedings of the national528 Indiana Academy of Science Vol. 95 (1986)wetland classification and inventory workshop. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, pp. 131-141.10. Shaw, S. P. and C. G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U. S.D.I.,Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39, 67 pp.11. Toburen, C. D. and J. T. Windell. 1977. Study plan for the lower GunnisonRiver Basin wetland inventory and evaluation. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Ser-vice, 14 pp.12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Habitat evaluation procedure: for use bythe division of ecological services in evaluating water and related land resourcedevelopment projects. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service, 30 pp.13. Weller, M. W. 1978. Wetland Habitats In: Proceedings of the national symposiumon wetlands. American Water Resources Association, National Wetlands TechnicalCouncil, pp. 210-234.

Avifauna as Indicators of Habitat Quality in Some Wetlands of Northern Indiana

https://journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/ias/article/download/7603/7567

Avifauna as Indicators of Habitat Quality in Some Wetlands of Northern Indiana

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Access Journals at IU Indianapolis