Upload File

invertebrate abundance near piping plover nests in the

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Invertebrate Abundance Near Piping Plover Nests in the
1
Invertebrate Abundance Near Piping Plover Nests in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan Thomas J. Flanagan and Jason M. Garvon, Ph.D. School of Biological Sciences Lake Superior State University Sault Ste. Marie, MI Abstract Background Objec?ves Methods Acknowledgements Literature Cited PreservaDon of breeding habitat and careful monitoring of nesDng sites has aided in the recovery of the endangered Great Lakes Piping Plover to a record 73 breeding pairs in 2015. While the required physical characterisDcs of breeding habitats, such as width of shoreline and substrate composiDon are well understood, the role of food abundance on nest site selecDon and nest success is poorly understood, partly due to the nature of tradiDonal invertebrate sampling techniques that may pose a danger to the Piping Plovers themselves. We sought to create a passive invertebrate sampling technique to characterize invertebrate communiDes and determine whether food abundance near Piping Plover nesDng sites is greater than the abundance of food in seemingly similar, non-selected nesDng sites. BioCams recorded invertebrates within 0.09 m 2 frames every two seconds for four hours at each of the seven nesDng locaDons (Grand Marais (2), Gulliver (2), Vermilion (2), and Port Inland, MI). The BioCams were simultaneously placed near nests at both the shore and dune, and at least 300 m away from acDve nests. We found BioCams were successful in their ability to idenDfy invertebrates to taxonomic Order and esDmate an abundance of available invertebrates without disturbing the Plovers. Dipterans dominated communiDes near nests and were the most abundant of all idenDfied taxa (p=0.008). There was no variaDon in invertebrate abundance by proximity (near vs. away from nest) (p=0.436). While overall invertebrate abundance was not a primary factor in nest site selecDon for Piping Plovers, further study on specific orders and creaDon of a prey quality index may provide valuable informaDon for future management of Great Lakes Piping Plovers. Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) are an endemic species that nest on the shorelines of the Great Lakes (Cairns 1980) and are disDnguished into three geographic populaDons; the AtlanDc and Great Plains populaDons, which are federally threatened, and the Great Lakes populaDon, which are federally endangered (Haffner et al. 2009). ConservaDon efforts have brought the Piping Plover populaDon from a low of 12 maDng pairs to 73 maDng pairs in 2015 (Cavalieri 2015). To further aid populaDon recovery, we need to beaer understand the foraging habits and diet in order to enhance food resource assessments and idenDficaDon of suitable habitats for the Piping Plover (Cuthbert et al. 1999). Haffner et al. (2009) used Arc GIS technology to determine that Piping Plovers use an average linear distance of 473 ± 53 meters along these wet sandy substrates to forage for invertebrates. Given the relaDvely small secDon of beach that is used for nesDng, it seems probable that Piping Plovers may select nest sites based on invertebrate abundance. While we know Piping Plovers are visual predators, using site to locate invertebrates along the beach surface (Cuthbert et al. 1999), only Cuthbert et al. (1999) have examined gizzard contents to report actual prey eaten, leaving our best esDmate of Plover diet to be a determinaDon of invertebrate abundance along shorelines where Plovers feed. A complicaDng factor in such assessment is the potenDal for injury of Plovers by tradiDonal sDcky trap type invertebrate assessments. Therefore, the creaDon of a non-invasive/non-consumpDve, or passive, invertebrate sampling technique for use in Piping Plover nest areas is warranted. A simple modificaDon of NaDonal Geographic photographer David Liaschwager’s Biocube would likely allow for esDmaDon of invertebrate abundance with minimal disturbance. The study objecDves were (1) develop a non-invasive sampling technique (BioCam) to determine invertebrate abundance near piping plover nests (2) use the BioCam to characterize the invertebrate fauna available to Piping Plovers on the beaches of the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan (3) determine whether or not invertebrate abundance is greater near Piping Plover nests than areas of adjacent beach. Discussion Results Study Sites • Two beaches on Lake Michigan (Gulliver and Port Inland) • Two beaches on Lake Superior (Grand Marais and Vermilion) BioCam Construc?on (Figure 1) • Constructed using ¼ inch steel rod • A 20 cm high A-frame was aaached to a 0.09 m 2 frame • A Go Pro camera was aaached to a threaded rod that ran through a nut aaached to the apex of the A-frame • The Go Pro was pointed downward and centered above the square Experimental Design (Figure 1) • Two BioCams placed near the nest site • One BioCam was placed near the nest at the dune line (within 5 m) • One BioCam was placed in front of the nest at the high water line • Two BioCams placed 300 m away from the nest site • One BioCam was placed at the dune line • One BioCam was placed at the high water line • Freezer paper placed under the BioCam • Go Pro cameras (3 - Hero III white, 1 - Hero silver plus) set to take pictures at two second intervals for four hours • Pictures were viewed and any invertebrate within the 0.09 m 2 area was counted and idenDfied to Order if possible • UnidenDfied invertebrates were placed into two categories • Large unknown: any invertebrate larger than a housefly • Small unknown: any invertebrate smaller than a housefly Data Analysis • Percent similarity (Pielou 1975) - Invertebrate communiDes within site by proximity (near vs away) • T-test - Total invertebrate abundances by proximity (near vs away) • ANOVA (systat) - Invertebrate taxa abundance and abundance by proximity (near vs away) We are grateful to Vince Cavalieri (USF&WS) for helpful assistance throughout this project along with the 2014 and 2015 Piping Plover monitoring teams for helping with data collecDon. Lake Superior State University Undergraduate Research Fund and the NaDonal Fish and Wildlife FoundaDon, Sustain Our Great Lakes Grant provided financial support. BioCams • Successfully surveyed invertebrates • Can be used for a wide range of studies • ResoluDon dependent on Go Pro model Invertebrate Community Characteriza?on • Overall community by proximity (near, away) (Figure 2) • Near nests dominated by Diptera • Hymenoptera most represented in samples away from nests • Within site invertebrate communiDes (% similarity) (Figure 3) • Mean value = 52.24% • Most similar – Grand Marais Agate: 82.65% • Least similar – Vermilion Site 1: 36.81% Invertebrate Abundances • Overall invertebrate abundance similar by proximity (p=0.436) (Figure 4) • Dipterans most abundant overall (p=0.008) but not by proximity (p=0.142) • Diptera (21.34 ± 4.70 m 2 /h) • Coleoptera (10.76 ± 4.61 m 2 /h) • Hymenoptera (3.94 ± 1.29 m 2 /h) Biocams were successful in documenDng invertebrates to Order and esDmaDng invertebrate abundance. However, they only allow us to see Piping Plover habitats in 2-dimensions. Piping Plover chicks have been observed gleaning insects from beach vegetaDon (Cuthbert et al. 1999), so a 2-dimensional view may not allow us to collect all abundance data, but simple modificaDons could be added to incorporate this data. ResoluDon of smaller invertebrates could be improved with higher quality camera. Three taxa dominated the invertebrate communiDes (Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Coleoptera) and were also the three most abundant of the 6 represented orders present in gizzard contents of juvenile Piping Plovers necropsied from Grand Marais, MI in 1996 and 1997 (Cuthbert et al. 1999). Since the Orders idenDfied by the BioCams in this study correlate to the Orders of the Grand Marais study, this suggests that Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Coleoptera are indeed a main diet source for Piping Plovers in the Great Lakes region. Invertebrate community structure near nest sites appeared different than that away from the nest as evident by the percent of community composiDon represented by Dipterans and Hymenopterans, respecDvely. Although invertebrate abundance did not differ by nest proximity, the observed difference in community composiDon may be an indicaDon of quality in nest site selecDon. Given the limited sampling replicates in this study data, collecDon in subsequent years should be conducted to further explore this hypothesis. While overall invertebrate abundance was not a primary factor in nest site selecDon, it may have influenced fledging success and chick survival as starvaDon-induced weakness can lead to lower Piping Plover chick survival (Loegering and Fraser 1995). Chick mortality may be related to three factors- quality of foraging habitat, predaDon rates, and human disturbance (Paaerson et. al. 1991). Future research should examine the importance of invertebrate abundance and community structure in relaDon to nest site selecDon and chick survival with special aaenDon to determining an index of quality in invertebrate prey sources. Cairns, W.E. 1982. Biology and behavior of breeding piping plovers. Wilson Bull 94(4): 531-545. Cavalieri, V., United States Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communicaDon. Cuthbert, F.J., B. Scholtens, L.C. Wemmer and R. McLain. 1999. Gizzard contents of piping plover chicks in northern michigan. The Wilson BulleDn 111(1): 121-123. Haffner, C.D., F.J. Cuthbert and T.W. Arnold. 2009. Space use by great lakes piping plovers during the breeding season. Journal of Field Ornithology 80(3): 270-279. Loegering, J.P., and J.D. Fraser. 1995. Factors affecDng piping plover chick survival in different brood-rearing habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(4): 646-655. Paaerson, M.E., J.D. Fraser, and J.W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecDng piping plover producDvity on Assateague island. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3): 525-531. Pielou, E.C., 1975. Ecological diversity. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Figure 4. Total abundance of invertebrates near and away from Piping Plover nests at seven locaDons in Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula. Figure 3. Invertebrate community composiDon (%) near and away with percent similarity values from Piping Plover nests at seven locaDons in Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula. Figure 1. Aerial (top lep), side view (top right), and placement (boaom) of the BioCam setups near and away from nests. Figure 2. Mean percentage of invertebrate communiDes (near and away from Piping Plover nest) represented by idenDfied taxa. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Near Away No. of Invertebrates (m 2 /hr) Nest Proximity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Araneae Hymenoptera Large Unknown Small Unknown Coleoptera Diptera Grand Marais Sucker River Vermilion Site 1 Vermilion Site 2 Gulliver East 2 Gulliver West Port Inland 82.65% 39.29% 36.81% 67.22% 39.64% 49.97% 57.10% Percent Similarity Percent ComposiDon NesDng Site Grand Marais Agate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Diptera Coleoptera Small Unknown Large Unknown Hymenoptera Aranea Near Away

Upload: others

Post on 10-Dec-2021

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Invertebrate Abundance Near Piping Plover Nests in the

InvertebrateAbundanceNearPipingPloverNestsintheEasternUpperPeninsulaofMichigan

ThomasJ.FlanaganandJasonM.Garvon,Ph.D.SchoolofBiologicalSciencesLakeSuperiorStateUniversity

SaultSte.Marie,MI

Abstract

Background

Objec?ves

Methods

Acknowledgements

LiteratureCited

PreservaDonofbreedinghabitatandcarefulmonitoringofnesDngsiteshasaidedintherecoveryoftheendangeredGreatLakesPipingPlovertoarecord73breedingpairsin2015.WhiletherequiredphysicalcharacterisDcsofbreedinghabitats,suchaswidthofshorelineandsubstratecomposiDonarewellunderstood,theroleoffoodabundanceonnestsiteselecDonandnestsuccessispoorlyunderstood,partlyduetothenatureoftradiDonalinvertebratesamplingtechniquesthatmayposeadangertothePipingPloversthemselves.WesoughttocreateapassiveinvertebratesamplingtechniquetocharacterizeinvertebratecommuniDesanddeterminewhetherfoodabundancenearPipingPlovernesDngsitesisgreaterthantheabundanceoffoodinseeminglysimilar,non-selectednesDngsites.BioCamsrecordedinvertebrateswithin0.09m2frameseverytwosecondsforfourhoursateachofthesevennesDnglocaDons(GrandMarais(2),Gulliver(2),Vermilion(2),andPortInland,MI).TheBioCamsweresimultaneouslyplacednearnestsatboththeshoreanddune,andatleast300mawayfromacDvenests.WefoundBioCamsweresuccessfulintheirabilitytoidenDfyinvertebratestotaxonomicOrderandesDmateanabundanceofavailableinvertebrateswithoutdisturbingthePlovers.DipteransdominatedcommuniDesnearnestsandwerethemostabundantofallidenDfiedtaxa(p=0.008).TherewasnovariaDonininvertebrateabundancebyproximity(nearvs.awayfromnest)(p=0.436).WhileoverallinvertebrateabundancewasnotaprimaryfactorinnestsiteselecDonforPipingPlovers,furtherstudyonspecificordersandcreaDonofapreyqualityindexmayprovidevaluableinformaDonforfuturemanagementofGreatLakesPipingPlovers.

PipingPlovers(Charadriusmelodus)areanendemicspeciesthatnestontheshorelinesoftheGreatLakes(Cairns1980)andaredisDnguishedintothreegeographicpopulaDons;theAtlanDcandGreatPlainspopulaDons,whicharefederallythreatened,andtheGreatLakespopulaDon,whicharefederallyendangered(Haffneretal.2009).ConservaDoneffortshavebroughtthePipingPloverpopulaDonfromalowof12maDngpairsto73maDngpairsin2015(Cavalieri2015).TofurtheraidpopulaDonrecovery,weneedtobeaerunderstandtheforaginghabitsanddietinordertoenhancefoodresourceassessmentsandidenDficaDonofsuitablehabitatsforthePipingPlover(Cuthbertetal.1999).Haffneretal.(2009)usedArcGIStechnologytodeterminethatPipingPloversuseanaveragelineardistanceof473±53metersalongthesewetsandysubstratestoforageforinvertebrates.GiventherelaDvelysmallsecDonofbeachthatisusedfornesDng,itseemsprobablethatPipingPloversmayselectnestsitesbasedoninvertebrateabundance.WhileweknowPipingPloversarevisualpredators,usingsitetolocateinvertebratesalongthebeachsurface(Cuthbertetal.1999),onlyCuthbertetal.(1999)haveexaminedgizzardcontentstoreportactualpreyeaten,leavingourbestesDmateofPloverdiettobeadeterminaDonofinvertebrateabundancealongshorelineswherePloversfeed.AcomplicaDngfactorinsuchassessmentisthepotenDalforinjuryofPloversbytradiDonalsDckytraptypeinvertebrateassessments.Therefore,thecreaDonofanon-invasive/non-consumpDve,orpassive,invertebratesamplingtechniqueforuseinPipingPlovernestareasiswarranted.AsimplemodificaDonofNaDonalGeographicphotographerDavidLiaschwager’sBiocubewouldlikelyallowforesDmaDonofinvertebrateabundancewithminimaldisturbance.

ThestudyobjecDveswere(1)developanon-invasivesamplingtechnique(BioCam)todetermineinvertebrateabundancenearpipingplovernests(2)usetheBioCamtocharacterizetheinvertebratefaunaavailabletoPipingPloversonthebeachesoftheEasternUpperPeninsulaofMichigan(3)determinewhetherornotinvertebrateabundanceisgreaternearPipingPloverneststhanareasofadjacentbeach.

Discussion

Results

StudySites•  TwobeachesonLakeMichigan(GulliverandPortInland)•  TwobeachesonLakeSuperior(GrandMaraisandVermilion)BioCamConstruc?on(Figure1)•  Constructedusing¼inchsteelrod•  A20cmhighA-framewasaaachedtoa0.09m2frame•  AGoProcamerawasaaachedtoathreadedrodthatranthroughanut

aaachedtotheapexoftheA-frame•  TheGoProwaspointeddownwardandcenteredabovethesquareExperimentalDesign(Figure1)•  TwoBioCamsplacednearthenestsite

•  OneBioCamwasplacednearthenestattheduneline(within5m)•  OneBioCamwasplacedinfrontofthenestatthehighwaterline

•  TwoBioCamsplaced300mawayfromthenestsite•  OneBioCamwasplacedattheduneline•  OneBioCamwasplacedatthehighwaterline

•  FreezerpaperplacedundertheBioCam•  GoProcameras(3-HeroIIIwhite,1-Herosilverplus)settotakepicturesat

twosecondintervalsforfourhours•  Pictureswereviewedandanyinvertebratewithinthe0.09m2areawas

countedandidenDfiedtoOrderifpossible•  UnidenDfiedinvertebrateswereplacedintotwocategories

•  Largeunknown:anyinvertebratelargerthanahousefly•  Smallunknown:anyinvertebratesmallerthanahousefly

DataAnalysis•  Percentsimilarity(Pielou1975)-InvertebratecommuniDeswithinsiteby

proximity(nearvsaway)•  T-test-Totalinvertebrateabundancesbyproximity(nearvsaway)•  ANOVA(systat)-Invertebratetaxaabundanceandabundancebyproximity

(nearvsaway)

WearegratefultoVinceCavalieri(USF&WS)forhelpfulassistancethroughoutthisprojectalongwiththe2014and2015PipingPlovermonitoringteamsforhelpingwithdatacollecDon.LakeSuperiorStateUniversityUndergraduateResearchFundandtheNaDonalFishandWildlifeFoundaDon,SustainOurGreatLakesGrantprovidedfinancialsupport.

BioCams•  Successfullysurveyedinvertebrates•  Canbeusedforawiderangeofstudies•  ResoluDondependentonGoPromodel

InvertebrateCommunityCharacteriza?on•  Overallcommunitybyproximity(near,away)(Figure2)

•  NearnestsdominatedbyDiptera•  Hymenopteramostrepresentedinsamplesawayfromnests

•  WithinsiteinvertebratecommuniDes(%similarity)(Figure3)•  Meanvalue=52.24%•  Mostsimilar–GrandMaraisAgate:82.65%•  Leastsimilar–VermilionSite1:36.81%

InvertebrateAbundances•  Overallinvertebrateabundancesimilarbyproximity(p=0.436)(Figure4)•  Dipteransmostabundantoverall(p=0.008)butnotbyproximity(p=0.142)

•  Diptera(21.34±4.70m2/h)•  Coleoptera(10.76±4.61m2/h)•  Hymenoptera(3.94±1.29m2/h)

BiocamsweresuccessfulindocumenDnginvertebratestoOrderandesDmaDnginvertebrateabundance.However,theyonlyallowustoseePipingPloverhabitatsin2-dimensions.PipingPloverchickshavebeenobservedgleaninginsectsfrombeachvegetaDon(Cuthbertetal.1999),soa2-dimensionalviewmaynotallowustocollectallabundancedata,butsimplemodificaDonscouldbeaddedtoincorporatethisdata.ResoluDonofsmallerinvertebratescouldbeimprovedwithhigherqualitycamera.ThreetaxadominatedtheinvertebratecommuniDes(Diptera,Hymenoptera,andColeoptera)andwerealsothethreemostabundantofthe6representedorderspresentingizzardcontentsofjuvenilePipingPloversnecropsiedfromGrandMarais,MIin1996and1997(Cuthbertetal.1999).SincetheOrdersidenDfiedbytheBioCamsinthisstudycorrelatetotheOrdersoftheGrandMaraisstudy,thissuggeststhatDiptera,Hymenoptera,andColeopteraareindeedamaindietsourceforPipingPloversintheGreatLakesregion.InvertebratecommunitystructurenearnestsitesappeareddifferentthanthatawayfromthenestasevidentbythepercentofcommunitycomposiDonrepresentedbyDipteransandHymenopterans,respecDvely.Althoughinvertebrateabundancedidnotdifferbynestproximity,theobserveddifferenceincommunitycomposiDonmaybeanindicaDonofqualityinnestsiteselecDon.Giventhelimitedsamplingreplicatesinthisstudydata,collecDoninsubsequentyearsshouldbeconductedtofurtherexplorethishypothesis.WhileoverallinvertebrateabundancewasnotaprimaryfactorinnestsiteselecDon,itmayhaveinfluencedfledgingsuccessandchicksurvivalasstarvaDon-inducedweaknesscanleadtolowerPipingPloverchicksurvival(LoegeringandFraser1995).Chickmortalitymayberelatedtothreefactors-qualityofforaginghabitat,predaDonrates,andhumandisturbance(Paaersonet.al.1991).FutureresearchshouldexaminetheimportanceofinvertebrateabundanceandcommunitystructureinrelaDontonestsiteselecDonandchicksurvivalwithspecialaaenDontodetermininganindexofqualityininvertebratepreysources.

Cairns,W.E.1982.Biologyandbehaviorofbreedingpipingplovers.WilsonBull94(4):531-545.Cavalieri,V.,UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService,personalcommunicaDon.Cuthbert,F.J.,B.Scholtens,L.C.WemmerandR.McLain.1999.Gizzardcontentsofpipingploverchicksinnorthern

michigan.TheWilsonBulleDn111(1):121-123.Haffner,C.D.,F.J.CuthbertandT.W.Arnold.2009.Spaceusebygreatlakespipingploversduringthebreedingseason.

JournalofFieldOrnithology80(3):270-279.Loegering,J.P.,andJ.D.Fraser.1995.FactorsaffecDngpipingploverchicksurvivalindifferentbrood-rearinghabitats.

JournalofWildlifeManagement59(4):646-655.Paaerson,M.E.,J.D.Fraser,andJ.W.Roggenbuck.1991.FactorsaffecDngpipingploverproducDvityonAssateagueisland.JournalofWildlifeManagement55(3):525-531.Pielou,E.C.,1975.Ecologicaldiversity.JohnWileyandSons,NewYork.

Figure4.TotalabundanceofinvertebratesnearandawayfromPipingPlovernestsatsevenlocaDonsinMichigan’sEasternUpperPeninsula.

Figure3.InvertebratecommunitycomposiDon(%)nearandawaywithpercentsimilarityvaluesfromPipingPlovernestsatsevenlocaDonsinMichigan’sEasternUpperPeninsula.

Figure1.Aerial(toplep),sideview(topright),andplacement(boaom)oftheBioCamsetupsnearandawayfromnests.

Figure2.MeanpercentageofinvertebratecommuniDes(nearandawayfromPipingPlovernest)representedbyidenDfiedtaxa.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Near Away

No.ofInvertebrates(m

2 /hr)

NestProximity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away

Araneae

Hymenoptera

LargeUnknown

SmallUnknown

Coleoptera

Diptera

GrandMaraisSuckerRiver

VermilionSite1 VermilionSite2 GulliverEast2 GulliverWest PortInland

82.65% 39.29% 36.81% 67.22% 39.64% 49.97% 57.10%

PercentSimilarity

Percen

tCom

posiD

on

NesDngSite

GrandMaraisAgate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Diptera Coleoptera SmallUnknown LargeUnknown Hymenoptera Aranea

Near

Away

Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Strategic Communications Plan ... · Appendices, Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Strategic Communications Plan 26 piping plover. • With fewer than 4,000

Invertebrate Biodiversity - KBS GK12 Projectkbsgk12project.kbs.msu.edu/.../2011/09/Invertebrate-Biodiversity.pdf · Invertebrate Biodiversity Background information ... 4. Photograph

Bird Nests

Piping Plover Training Guide - Species at Risk · Piping Plovers arrive in Eastern Canada in mid-April-May. They make their nests on our sandy and pebbly coastal beaches. This chart

Science Fair: Nests

Audubon Coastal Bird Survey: The Basics of Plover ... · Plover Quiz: 1 Piping Plover . Plover Quiz: 2 Semipalmated Plovers (and what look like Western Sandpipers - compare size with

Upland Plover May-June 2016

PIPING PLOVER (Charadrius melodus)

The Piping Plover

Upland Plover Jan Feb 2015

BIRD HABITATS Birds build nests. Nests keep eggs safe. Nests keep birds safe. Nests provide shelter

Snowy Plover Population Monitoring, Research, and ... · • The percent of nests that survived from egg laying through hatching during the 2007 nesting season was 37% which was an

I was the solitary plover

Upland Plover July-August 2016

Western Snowy Plover Monitoring in the San Francisco Bay ... · Western Snowy Plover Monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Annual Report 2018 Prepared By: Ben Pearl, Plover Program

Plover, the Open Source Steno Enginestenoknight.com/plover/ploverpyconpresentation.pdf · Plus input, testing, and code from the 199 members of the Plover Google Group . ... Chords

Invertebrate Classification & Relationships 1 Marine Invertebrate Zoology Invertebrate Classification and Relationships

PIPING PLOVER ASSESSMENT - Maine.gov › ifw › docs › species_planning › birds › pipingp… · mixtures of sand, shells, pebbles, or cobble. Nests occur most commonly at sites

Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Strategic Communications Plan · PDF fileAtlantic Coast Piping Plover Strategic Communications Plan: ... Problem Statement ... Atlantic Coast Piping Plover

Upland Plover - March April 2015

5-Year Review - Piping Plover

2008 Interior Least Tern Plover

2014 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING REPORT …...CAHFS California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory ... no predator tracks could be identified. Of the remaining failed nests,

Plover Violation

Audubon Coastal Bird Survey: The Basics of Plover ... · Audubon Coastal Bird Survey: The Basics of Plover Identification ... –Piping Plover ... Plover Quiz: 1 Piping Plover

Black-bellied Plover

Piping Plover

Piping Plover, circumcinctus subspecies

Plover Cove Reservoir

Invertebrate/Vertebrate Pretest. Invertebrate or Vertebrate?

Black-bellied Plover. (winter plumage) Black-bellied Plover (molting plumage)

BREEDING BIOLOGY OF THE MOUNTAIN PLOVER · 2015. 3. 4. · Graul - MOUNTAIN PLOVER RIOLOGY 7 I found 154 nests and an additional 60 broods during the study and placed colored and

Upland Plover - Nov Dec 2015

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Piping plover in nonbreeding plumage, photographed October 2002 at …Published

The Plover Magazine Fall 2014