Origin and Availability of Large Cavities for Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), a Species at Risk Inhabiting the Eastern Canadian Boreal Forest

Large secondary-nesting birds such as ducks rely on appropriate cavities for breeding. The main objective of this study was to assess the availability of large cavities and the potential of a managed boreal coniferous landscape to provide nesting trees within the breeding area of the eastern population of Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), a cavity-nesting species at risk in Canada. Woodpecker surveys were conducted in both conifer and mixed-wood landscapes, and cavities were sought in line transects distributed in unharvested and linear remnant stands of balsam fir (Abies balsamea) and black spruce (Picea mariana) as well as in cutblocks. No Pileated Woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) were detected in the breeding area of Barrow’s Goldeneye, but the species was present in the nearby lowland area in which trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) is abundant. Only 10 trees (0.2% of those sampled) supported cavities considered suitable for Barrow’s Goldeneye in terms of dimensions and canopy openness. Most of the suitable cavities found during this study were nonexcavated apical (chimney) cavities in relatively short snags that showed advanced states of decay. A diameter-at-breast-height threshold was determined for each tree species, after which the probability of cavity occurrence was enhanced in terms of potential cavity trees for Barrow’s Goldeneye. Remnant linear forest sites had lower potential tree densities than did their unharvested equivalents. Large cavities were thus a rare component in this boreal landscape, suggesting that they may be a limiting factor for this population at risk. Current even-aged forest management that mainly relies on clear-cut practices is likely to further reduce the potential of this landscape to provide trees with suitable cavities.

Risk of Agricultural Practices and Habitat Change to Farmland Birds

Many common bird species have declined as a result of agricultural intensification and this could be mitigated by organic farming. We paired sites for habitat and geographical location on organic and nonorganic farms in Ontario, Canada to test a priori predictions of effects on birds overall, 9 guilds and 22 species in relation to candidate models for farming practices (13 variables), local habitat features (12 variables), or habitat features that influence susceptibility to predation. We found that: (1) Overall bird abundance, but not richness, was significantly (p < 0.05) higher on organic sites (mean 43.1 individuals per site) than nonorganic sites (35.8 individuals per site). Significantly more species of birds were observed for five guilds, including primary grassland birds, on organic vs. nonorganic sites. No guild had higher richness or abundance on nonorganic farms; (2) Farming practice models were the best (ΔAIC < 4) for abundance of birds overall, primary grassland bird richness, sallier aerial insectivore richness and abundance, and abundance of ground nesters; (3) Habitat models were the best for overall richness, Neotropical migrant abundance, richness and abundance of Ontario-USA-Mexico (short-distance) migrants and resident richness; (4) Predation models were the best for richness of secondary grassland birds and ground feeders; (5) A combination of variables from the model types were best for richness or abundance overall, 13 of 18 guilds (richness and abundance) and 16 of 22 species analyzed. Five of 10 farming practice variables (including herbicide use, organic farm type) and 9 of 13 habitat variables (including hedgerow length, proportion of hay) were significant in best models. Risk modeling indicated that herbicide use could decrease primary grassland birds by one species (35% decline from 3.4 to 2.3 species) per site. Organic farming could benefit species of conservation concern by 49% (an increase from 7.6 to 11.4 grassland birds). An addition of 63 m of hedgerow could increase abundance and richness of short distance migrants by 50% (3.0 to 4.8 and 1.3 to 2.0, respectively). Increasing the proportion of hay on nonorganic farms to 50% could increase abundance of primary grassland bird by 40% (6.7 to 9.4). Our results provide support for alternative farmland designs and agricultural management systems that could enhance select bird species in farmland.

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.