Mallard Use of Hen HousesTM in Eastern Ontario

Nesting structures for ground-nesting waterfowl may be an effective technique for increasing nesting success in regions in which nest success is below the 15% threshold needed to maintain a stable population. We studied the occupancy rate of artificial nesting structures called hen housesTM by Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) nesting in two different wetland habitats, beaver ponds and sewage lagoons, in eastern Ontario during 1999–2001. We hypothesized that, because natural cover was sparse on sewage lagoons, Mallards would occupy hen houses at a higher rate on sewage lagoons than on beaver ponds. However, of the 248 hen houses distributed between beaver ponds and sewage lagoons, none was occupied by waterfowl. Common Grackles (Quiscalus quiscula) were the only avian species that nested in hen houses. However, Mallards successfully nested directly under several structures (n = 6) when water levels were low enough to expose the ground beneath them. Mayfield daily nest survival estimates for Mallards nesting in natural cover were similar on sewage lagoons and beaver ponds for all years (mean = 0.99) and were higher than most published estimates. Factors such as nesting cover, predation pressures, and structure design and material may influence the use of artificial hen houses and should be considered when planning a hen house program outside of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Stand and within-stand factors influencing Golden-winged Warbler use of regenerating stands in the central Appalachian Mountains

The Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) is currently being considered for protected status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The creation of breeding habitat in the Appalachian Mountains is considered a conservation priority for this songbird, which is dependent on extensively forested landscapes with adequate availability of young forest. We modeled abundance of Golden-winged Warbler males in regenerating harvested forest stands that were 0-17 years postharvest at both mid-Appalachian and northeast Pennsylvania regional scales using stand and within-stand characteristics of 222 regenerating stands, 2010-2011. Variables that were most influential at the mid-Appalachian scale were different than those in the northeast region. Across the mid-Appalachian ecoregion, the proportion of young forest cover, i.e., shrub/scrub cover, within 1 km of regenerating stands best explained abundance of Golden-winged Warblers. Golden-winged Warbler response was best explained by a concave quadratic relationship in which abundance was highest with 5-15% land in young forest cover. We also found evidence that the amount of herbaceous cover, i.e., the amount of grasses and forbs, within a regenerating stand positively influenced abundance of Golden-winged Warblers. In northeastern Pennsylvania, where young forest cover is found in high proportions, the distance to the nearest regenerating stand best explained variation in abundance of Golden-winged Warblers. Abundance of Golden-winged Warblers was <1 male per survey when another regenerating stand was >1500 m away. When modeling within-stand features in the northeast region, many of the models were closely ranked, indicating that multiple variables likely explained Golden-winged Warbler response to within-stand conditions. Based on our findings, we have proposed several management guidelines for land managers interested in creating breeding habitat for Golden-winged Warblers using commercial timber operations. For example, we recommend when managing for Golden-winged Warblers in the central Appalachian Mountains that managers should strive for 15% young forest in a heavily forested landscape (>70% forest cover) and cluster stands within 1-2 km of other young forest habitats.