Density dependence and phenological mismatch: consequences for growth and survival of sub-arctic nesting Canada Geese

The extent to which species are plastic in the timing of their reproductive events relative to phenology suggests how climate change might affect their demography. An ecological mismatch between the timing of hatch for avian species and the peak availability in quality and quantity of forage for rapidly growing offspring might ultimately affect recruitment to the breeding population unless individuals can adjust the timing of breeding to adapt to changing phenology. We evaluated effects of goose density, hatch timing relative to forage plant phenology, and weather indices on annual growth of pre-fledging Canada geese (Branta canadensis) from 1993-2010 at Akimiski Island, Nunavut. We found effects of both density and hatch timing relative to forage plant phenology; the earlier that eggs hatched relative to forage plant phenology, the larger the mean gosling size near fledging. Goslings were smallest in years when hatch was latest relative to forage plant phenology, and when local abundance of breeding adults was highest. We found no evidence for a trend in relative hatch timing, but it was apparent that in early springs, Canada geese tended to hatch later relative to vegetation phenology, suggesting that geese were not always able to adjust the timing of nesting as rapidly as vegetation phenology was advanced. Analyses using forage biomass information revealed a positive relationship between gosling size and per capita biomass availability, suggesting a causal mechanism for the density effect. The effects of weather parameters explained additional variation in mean annual gosling size, although total June and July rainfall had a small additive effect on gosling size. Modelling of annual first-year survival probability using mean annual gosling size as an annual covariate revealed a positive relationship, suggesting that reduced gosling growth negatively impacts recruitment.

Investigating Targets of Avian Habitat Management to Eliminate an Ecological Trap

Ecological traps are attractive population sinks created when anthropogenic habitat alteration inadvertently creates a mismatch between the attractiveness of a habitat based upon its settlement cues, and its current value for survival or reproduction. Traps represent a new threat to the conservation of native species, yet little attention has been given to developing practical approaches to eliminating them. In the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Olive-sided Flycatchers (Contopus cooperi) prefer to settle in patches of selectively harvested forest versus burned forest despite the lower reproductive success and higher nest predation risk associated with the former habitat. I investigated characteristics of preferred perch sites for this species and how these preferences varied between habitats and sexes. I then built on previous research to develop a range of management prescriptions for reducing the attractiveness of selectively harvested forest, thereby disarming the ecological trap. Female flycatchers preferred to forage from shorter perch trees than males, and females’ perches were shorter than other available perch trees. Both sexes preferred standing dead perch trees (snags) and these preferences were most obvious in harvested forest where snags are rarer. Because previous research shows that snag density is linked to habitat preference and spruce/fir trees are preferred nest substrate, my results suggest these two habitat components are focal habitat selection cues. I suggest alternative and complementary strategies for eliminating the ecological trap for Olive-sided Flycatchers including: (1) reduced retention and creation of snags, (2) avoiding selective harvest in spruce, fir, and larch stands, (3) avoiding retention of these tree species, and (4) selecting only even-aged canopy height trees for retention so as to reduce perch availability for female flycatchers. Because these strategies also have potential to negatively impact habitat suitability for other forest species or even create new ecological traps, we urge caution in the application of our management recommendations.