Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:28:38.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The benefits of crops and field management practices to wintering waterbirds in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta of California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

W. David Shuford ,
Matthew E. Reiter ,
Khara M. Strum ,
Michelle M. Gilbert ,
Catherine M. Hickey  and
Gregory H. Golet
W. David Shuford*
Affiliation:
Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Dr., Suite 11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA.
Matthew E. Reiter
Affiliation:
Point Blue Conservation Science, TomKat Field Station, P.O. Box 747, Pescadero, CA 94060, USA.
Khara M. Strum
Affiliation:
Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Dr., Suite 11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA.
Michelle M. Gilbert
Affiliation:
Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Dr., Suite 11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA.
Catherine M. Hickey
Affiliation:
Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Dr., Suite 11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA.
Gregory H. Golet
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, 190 Cohasset Road, Suite 177, Chico, CA 95926, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agricultural intensification has been a major factor in the loss of global biodiversity. Still, agricultural landscapes provide important habitat for many bird species, particularly in the Central Valley of California, USA, where >90% of the natural wildlife habitat has been lost. As wildlife professionals increasingly work with agricultural producers to promote ‘wildlife-friendly’ farming, it is important to understand the relative value of specific crops and field management practices to birds. The value to wintering waterbirds of seven treatments (crop and management practice combinations) across two crops (corn and winter wheat) was assessed at Staten Island in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta of the Central Valley. Significant variation in the relative abundance of waterbirds was found among management practices, and post-harvest flooding and chopping and rolling (mulching) of corn were most beneficial to waterbirds. As expected, most waterbirds were common in flooded treatments, but geese, cranes and long-legged waders also were numerous in some dry treatments. Our data suggest that a greater waterbird species richness and abundance can be achieved by maintaining a mosaic of dry and flooded crop types, varying water depths and continuing the chop-and-roll practice for flooded corn. The observed benefits of particular crops and field management practices in this study should aid in the development of incentive-based programs to improve the habitat value of other working lands both within, and outside, the Delta.

Keywords

waterbird diversitycornwinter wheatwildlife-friendly agriculturebeneficial field management practices
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 495 - 506
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kleijn, D., Kohler, F., Báldi, A., Batáry, P., Concepción, E.D., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., Gabriel, D., Holzschuh, A., Knop, E., Kovács, A., Marshall, E.J.P., Tscharntke, T., and Verhulst, J. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:903–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Gonthier, D.J., Ennis, K.K., Farinas, S., Hsieh, H.-Y., Iverson, A.L., Batáry, P., Rudolphi, J., Tscharntke, T., Cardinale, B.J., and Perfecto, I. 2014. Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20141358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Ormerod, S.J. and Watkinson, A.R. 2000. Editors’ introduction: Birds and agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Uthes, S. and Matzdorf, B. 2013. Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature. Environmental Management 51:251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Donald, P.F., Green, R.E., and Heath, M.F. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:25–29.Google Scholar
6 Kleijn, D. and Sutherland, W.J. 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40:947–969.Google Scholar
7 Batáry, P., Báldi, A., Kleijn, D., and Tscharntke, T. 2011. Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278:1894–1902.Google Scholar
8 Taft, O.W. and Elphick, C.S. 2007. Waterbirds on Working Lands: Literature Review and Bibliography Development. National Audubon Society, Inc., New York. Available at Web site http://web4.audubon.org/bird/waterbirds/downloads.html (verified 1 May 2015).Google Scholar
9 National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2015. California agricultural statistics: 2013 annual bulletin. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Pacific Regional Field Office, Sacramento, California. Available at Web site www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/Reports/2013cas-all.pdf (verified 6 August 2015).Google Scholar
10 Shelton, M.L. 1987. Irrigation induced change in vegetation and evapotranspiration in the Central Valley of California. Landscape Ecology 1:95–105.Google Scholar
11 Elphick, C.S. and Oring, L.W. 1998. Winter management of Californian rice fields for waterbirds. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Strum, K.M., Reiter, M.E., Hartman, C.A., Iglecia, M.N., Kelsey, T.R., and Hickey, C.M. 2013. Winter management of California's rice fields to maximize waterbird habitat and minimize water use. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 179:116–124.Google Scholar
13 Liebman, M., Helmers, M.J., Schulte, L.A., and Chase, C.A. 2013. Using biodiversity to link agricultural productivity with environmental quality: Results from three field experiments in Iowa. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28:115–128.Google Scholar
14 Mitchell, J.P., Singh, P.N., Wallender, W.W., Munk, D.S., Wroble, J.F., Horwath, W.R., Hogan, P., Roy, R., and Hanson, B.R. 2012. No-tillage and high-residue practices reduce soil water evaporation. California Agriculture 66:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Fleskes, J.P., Yee, J.L., Casazza, M.L., Miller, M.R., Takekawa, J.Y., and Orthmeyer, D.L. 2005. Waterfowl distribution, movements, and habitat use relative to recent habitat changes in the Central Valley of California: A cooperative project to investigate impacts of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture and changing agricultural practices on the ecology of wintering waterfowl. Final Report, U.S. Geological Survey-Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Dixon, CA. Available at Web site http://www.werc.usgs.gov/ProductDetails.aspx?ID=3247 (verified 1 May 2015).Google Scholar
16 Shuford, W.D., Page, G.W., and Kjelmyr, J.E. 1998. Patterns and dynamics of shorebird use of California's Central Valley. Condor 100:227–244.Google Scholar
17 Shuford, W.D. (editor). 2014. Coastal California (BCR 32) Waterbird Conservation Plan: Encompassing the coastal slope and Coast Ranges of central and southern California and the Central Valley. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. Available at Web site http://www.centralvalleyjointventure.org/science/bird-conservation-plans (verified 1 May 2015).Google Scholar
18 Pogson, T.H. and Lindstedt, S.M. 1991. Distribution and abundance of large sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis tabida) wintering in California's Central Valley. Condor 93:266–278.Google Scholar
19 Ivey, G.L. and Herziger, C.P. 2003. Sandhill crane monitoring at Staten Island, San Joaquin County, California, 2002-03. The Nature Conservancy, Cosumnes River Preserve, 13501 Franklin Blvd. Galt, CA 95632. Available at Web site http://www.wccwg.nacwg.org/pdf/staten-cranes.pdf (verified 1 May 2015).Google Scholar
20 Central Valley Joint Venture. 2006. Central Valley Joint Venture implementation plan—conserving bird habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Available at Web site http://www.centralvalleyjointventure.org/science (verified 1 May 2015).Google Scholar
21 Lund, J.R., Hanak, E., Fleenor, W., Bennett, W., Howitt, R., Mount, J., and Moyle, P. 2010. Comparing Futures for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
22 Golet, G.H. 2011. Conservation needs and opportunities at Staten Island Ranch, San Joaquin County, California. Unpublished Report of The Nature Conservancy. Available at Web site http://www.cosumnes.org/agriculture-on-the-preserve/ (verified 19 May 2015).Google Scholar
23 Ivey, G.L., Herziger, C.P., and Gause, M. 2003. Farming for wildlife: An overview of agricultural operations at Staten Island, San Joaquin County, California. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available at Web site http://www.cosumnes.org/agriculture-on-the-preserve/ (verified 19 May 2015).Google Scholar
24 Stevens, D.L. and Olsen, A.R. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262–278.Google Scholar
25 Kery, M. 2010. Introduction to WinBUGS for Ecologists. Academic Press, Burlington, MA.Google Scholar
26 Hooten, M.B. and Hobbs, N.T. 2015. A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. Ecological Monographs 85:3–28.Google Scholar
27 Sturtz, S., Ligges, U., and Gelman, A. 2005. R2WinBUGS: A package for running WinBUGS from R. Journal of Statistical Software 12:1–16.Google Scholar
28 Spiegelhalter, D.J., Thomas, A., Best, N.G., and Lunn, D. 2003. WinBUGS version 1.4 User Manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
29 Gelman, A. and Hill, J. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
30 Manly, B.F. 2007. Randomization, Bootstrap, and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
31 Shaskey, L.E. 2012. Local and landscape influences on sandhill crane habitat suitability in the northern Sacramento Valley, CA. MS thesis, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.Google Scholar
32 Ivey, G.L., Dugger, B.D., Herziger, C.P., Casazza, M.L., and Fleskes, J.P. 2014. Characteristics of sandhill cranes in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta of California. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 12:1–19.Google Scholar
33 Baschuk, M.S., Koper, N., Wrubleski, D.A., and Goldsborough, G. 2012. Effects of water depth, cover and food resources on habitat use of marsh birds and waterfowl in boreal wetlands of Manitoba, Canada. Waterbirds 35:44–55.Google Scholar
34 White, D.H. and James, D. 1978. Differential use of fresh water environments by wintering waterfowl of coastal Texas. Wilson Bulletin 90:99–111.Google Scholar
35 Ivey, G.L. 2015. Comparative wintering ecology of two subspecies of sandhill crane: Informing conservation planning in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta region of California. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
36 Vickery, J.A., Bradbury, R.B., Henderson, I.G., Eaton, M.A., and Grice, P.V. 2004. The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biological Conservation 119:19–39.Google Scholar
37 Elphick, C. 2008. Landscape effects on waterbird densities in California rice fields: Taxonomic differences, scale-dependence, and conservation implications. Waterbirds 31:62–69.Google Scholar