The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is an endangered species endemic to the pine forests of the southeastern United States (Jackson 1971). Deforestation and habitat alteration have severely affected Red-cockaded Woodpecker populations; current populations are isolated and most are declining (Jackson 1971, Lennartz et al. 1983, Conner and Rudolph 1989, Costa and Escano 1989). The species has been extirpated from significant areas of suitable or potentially suitable habitat

Conner, Richard N.

Kyle, Howard

Rudolph, D. Craig

SFA ScholarWorks

Stephen F. Austin State UniversitySFA ScholarWorksFaculty Publications Forestry1990Experimental Reintroduction of Red-CockadedWoodpeckersD. Craig RudolphWildlife Habitat and Silviculture Laboratory, Southern Research Station, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Nacogdoches, TX 75962Howard KyleRichard N. ConnerWildlife Habitat and Silviculture Laboratory, Southern Research Station, U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/forestryPart of the Forest Sciences CommonsTell us how this article helped you.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Forestry at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publicationsby an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact cdsscholarworks@sfasu.edu.Recommended CitationRudolph, D. Craig; Kyle, Howard; and Conner, Richard N., "Experimental Reintroduction of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers" (1990).Faculty Publications. Paper 451.http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/forestry/451The Auk 109(4):914-916,  1992Experimental Reintroduction of Red-cockaded WoodpeckersD. CRAIG RUDOLPH,* RICHARD N. CONNER,’ DAWN K. CARRIE;  ANDRICHARD R. SCHAEFER’‘Wildlife Habitat and Siluiculture  Laboratory, Southern Forest Experiment Station,USDA Forest Service, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962, USA; and?San  Jacinto  Ranger District, Sam Houston National Forest, USDA Forest Service,308 North Belcher,  Cleveland, Texas 77327, USAThe Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) isan endangered species endemic to the pine forests ofthe southeastern United States (Jackson 1971). Defor-estation and habitat alteration have severely affectedRed-cockaded Woodpecker populations; current pop-ulations are isolated and most are declining (Jackson1971, Lennartz et al. 1983, Conner and Rudolph 1989,Costa and Escano 1989). The species has been extir-pated from significant areas of suitable or potentiallysuitable habitat.The cooperative-breeding social structure (Ligon1970, Walters et al. 1988) and the dependence on theavailability of adequate roost and nest cavities (Wal-ters et al. 1992) strongly influence the biology of thespecies. A direct consequence of this social structurein remnant populations is the demographic collapseresulting from the failure of or extended lag timeinvolved in the natural replacement of breeding in-dividuals. This effect becomes increasingly severe asindividual woodpecker groups become more isolatedin the declining populations (Conner and Rudolph1989). Potentially, the recently available techniquesof artificial cavity construction (Copeyon 1990, Allenin press) and translocation of first-year adults (De-Fazio et al. 1987) have provided managers with theability to minimize this problem. A major void inmanagement procedures is the current lack of a tech-nique to artificially establish woodpecker groups andpopulations de novo.Previous efforts to relocate Red-cockaded Wood-pecker breeding pairs met with limited success (Odomet al. 1982, Jackson et al. 1983). The recent improve-ments in cavity-construction techniques and experi-ence in translocating individual birds convinced usthat it was time to revisit the issue of the reintroduc-tion of breeding pairs to vacant habitat.An inactive cluster of cavity trees on the DavyCrockett National Forest in eastern Texas was chosen,for the attempt. The site had been inactive for abouttwo years. The site contained two natural cavities.One had a metal restrictor to reduce the enlargedentrance (Carter et al. 1989),  and the other was a singlet artificial cavity (insert type). Cavity competitors, fly-ing squirrels (Glaucomys  volans)  and Red-belliedWoodpeckers (Melanerpes  carolinus),  were removed asnecessary before and during the reintroduction. Res-in wells were reopened using a wood chisel prior tointroduction of the birds.The chosen site was approximately 3.5 km from thenearest woodpecker group, which consisted of abreeding pair and a helper male. All three birds werecolor banded, and the helper had joined the pair dur-ing the previous six months. The helper male wasknown to have visited the reintroduction site at leastonce prior to the reintroduction. Due to the famil-iarity of this helper male with the site, we elected touse him as the reintroduction male. The reintroduc-tion female was a bird of unknown origin associatingwith a male/female pair on the Davy Crockett Na-tional Forest. Eight additional clans were locatedwithin 10 km of the reintroduction site.Standard translocation techniques (DeFazio  et al.1987) were employed. Briefly, the birds were nettedfrom their roost cavities, transported in mesh cages,and placed in a natural cavity (male) and insert (fe-male) on the night of 17 February 1991. The respectivecavity trees were approximately 20 m apart. Wire meshwas tacked over the entrances to contain the birdsuntil dawn. A nylon cord attached to the mesh al-lowed the birds to be released by a person stationedat the base of each cavity tree. The birds were releasedsimultaneously at dawn on 18 February.The birds immediately established vocal and visualcontact, and remained in the immediate area for ap-proximately 30 min. During this period, vocalizationsand following behavior were similar to that whichwe have come to associate with successful translo-cations of juvenile birds to an established mate. Itstarted to rain at this time, and we left the site. Thetwo birds returned to the site on the evening of 18February and roosted in the immediate vicinity, butnot in the cavities. The birds were next checked onthe evening of 20 February. The female was still pres-ent and roosted in the open. The male had returnedto his original group and was roosting in his originalcavity.Rather than relocate the male a second time, ordepend on his voluntary return, we decided to obtaina second male. During the night of 21 February, wetranslocated a juvenile male (fledged 28 May 1990)from his natal group on the Angelina National Forest,Texas. The male was released from the introductioncavity shortly after the female became active on themorning of 22 February. Due to the distance (150 m)between the roost site of the female (still roosting inthe open) and the introduction cavity for the male,October 19921 Shor t  C o m m u n i c a t i o n s  and  C o m m e n t a r i e s 915they did not make contact before the female left thearea to forage. On the evening of 22 February, bothbirds returned to the cluster of cavity trees. Theirbehavior resembled that of an established pair. Theyeventually roosted in the open that night.Due to the reluctance of the birds to use the avail-able cavities, two additional artificial cavities (inserts)were installed on 25 February to provide additionalroosting options. On the evening of 28 February, twoof the new inserts exhibited signs of use; one andpossibly both birds roosted in these inserts.Subsequent roost checks verified that the two birdscontinued to roost in the inserts. Behavior appearednormal and, on 18 May 1991, the birds were incu-bating three eggs in one of the inserts. On 26 Maynestlings were being fed. A single male fledged inJune. We consider this initial attempt at reintroduc-tion a complete success. In fact, this pair of birds alsofledged at least one offspring in 1992.A number of observations follow from this effort.The choice of a nearby male familiar with the newsite and probably more than one year of age may havebeen a mistake. Combined with the failure of attemptsin Texas to translocate a juvenile female to an extra-territorial roosting male in hopes of establishing anew breeding pair, it appears that older helper malesmay be resistant to this type of manipulation. Also,it is possible that the proximity of the male’s priorcavity tree and/or the reluctance of the male to usethe available roost cavities may have been factors.A second successful attempt to reintroduce a pairof Red-cockaded Woodpeckers was carried out on 5February 1992 on the Sabine National Forest. Bothbirds used in this attempt were fledged the previousspring, a female from the Angelina National Forestand a male from the Davy Crockett National Forest.The site chosen was an abandoned cluster site withunusable cavities. Two inserts were installed prior tothe reintroduction. After release, the birds were notseen at the cluster, but they apparently remained inthe area. On 23 April 1992, two inserts were activeand the birds were present at the site. Logistical lim-itations prevented determination of any breeding ac-tivity.The implications of a viable reintroduction tech-nique are apparent. Given a sufficient donor popu-lation, such a technique provides the option of rein-troducing Red-cockaded Woodpeckers to currentlyunoccupied habitat once the basic habitat require-ments are present. It also provides a method of in-creasing the viability of existing small populationsby the strategic placement of additional breeding unitsto reduce isolation within these populations (Connerand Rudolph 1989) and, thus, to increase directly thepopulation size. We suggest that donor males be ob-tained from groups of sufficient size so that at leastone potential helper male remains.Walters et al. (1992) have demonstrated that newgroups will become established under certain circum-stances if artificial cavities are provided. Populationsize and isolation of sites may influence the successof their technique. In situations where their tech-nique is not feasible, the ability to establish new groupsby reintroduction will be of value.In the case of reintroductions to vacant habitat, westrongly support the use of simultaneous multiplereintroductions. The simultaneous reintroduction of5 to 10 pairs in a spatial array dense enough to permitsocial contact of adjacent pairs could immediately re-sult in the establishment of at least a partially func-tioning population. This could then serve as a nucleusfor future population growth by both natural andartificial means.We thank R. Costa, R. E. F. Escano, J. A. Jackson, J.D. Ligon, and J. R. Walters for reviews of an earlierdraft of this manuscript. S. Best and A. Sanchez pro-vided necessary technical assistance.LITERATURE CITEDALLEN, D. In press. Technique for installing cavityinserts for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. South-east. For. Exp. Stat. Rep.CARTER, J.  H., III, J. R. WALTERS, S.  H.  EVERHART, ANDP. D. DOERR.  1989. Restrictors for Red-cockadedWoodpecker cavities. Wildl. Sot.  Bull. 17:68-72.CONNER, R. N., AND D. C. RUDOLPH. 1989. Red-cock-aded Woodpecker colony status and trends onthe Angelina, Davy Crockett, and Sabine Na-tional Forests. Res. Pap. 50-250.  U.S. Dep. Agric.,Forest Serv., Southern Forest Experiment Station,New Orleans.COPEYON , C. K. 1990. A technique for constructingcavities for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Wildl.Sot.  Bull. 18:303-311.COSTA, R., AND R. E. F. ESCANO.  1989. Red-cockadedWoodpecker: Status and management in theSouthern Region in 1986. Tech. Publ. R8-TP  12.U.S. Dep. Agric., Forest Serv., Atlanta.DEFAZIO,  J. T., M. A. HUNNICUTT, M. R.  LENNARTZ, G.L. CHAPMAN , AND J,  A. JACKSON . 1987. Red-cock-aded Woodpecker translocation experiments inSouth Carolina. Proc.  Annu. Conf. Southeast. As-soc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 41:311-317.JACKSON , J.  A. 1971. The evolution, taxonomy, dis-tribution, past populations and current status ofthe Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Pages 4-29 in Theecology and management of the Red-cockadedWoodpecker (R. L. Thompson, Ed.). Bur. SportFish. Wildl., U.S. Dep. Int., and Tall Timbers Re-search Station, Tallahassee.JACKSON , J. A., 8. J.  SCHARDIEN, AND P.  R.  MILLER.1983. Moving Red-cockaded Woodpecker colo-nies: Relocation or phased destruction. Wildl. Sot.Bull. 11:59-62.LENNARTZ, M. R., P. H. GEISSLER, R. F. HARLOW, R. C.LONG, K. M. CHITWOOD,  AND J.  A. JACKSON . 1983.Status of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker on fed-916 Short Communications and Commentaries [Auk, Vol. 109era1  lands in the South. Pages 7-12 in Red-cock-aded Woodpecker Symposium II. Proceedings (D.A. Wood, Ed.). Florida Game and Fresh WaterFish Commission, Tallahassee.LIGON,  J. D. 1970. Behavior and breeding biology ofthe Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Auk 87~255-278.ODOM, R. R., J. RAPPOLE, J. EVANS, D. CHARBONNEAU,AND D. PALMER. 1982. Red-cockaded Wood-pecker relocation experiment in coastal Georgia.Wildl. Sot.  Bull. 10:197-203.WALTERS, J. R., P. D. DOERR,  AND J. H. CARTER, III.1988. The cooperative breeding system of theRed-cockaded Woodpecker. Ethology 78:275-305.WALTERS, J. R., III, C. K. COPEYON, AND J. H. CARTER .1992. A test of the ecological basis of cooperativebreeding in Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. Auk 109:90-97.Received 24 June 1991, accepted 23 February 1992.,,  1 1

Experimental Reintroduction of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers

http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1451&context=forestry

Experimental Reintroduction of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SFA ScholarWorks