Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative: Managing Waterbird Habitats after

the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill

Gulf Coast Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

24 May 2010 20 April 2010

• Largest accidental marine oil spill in history of petroleum industry

• Estimated total discharge of 4.9 million barrels (780,000 m3)

• Large response deployed to protect beaches, wetlands and estuaries

• Months-long spill compounded with adverse effects from response and cleanup activities

• Resulted in damage to marine and wildlife habitats as well as the fishing and tourism industries

OiOi

Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Summer-Fall 2010

4 Severe Drought Regions

Aug. 2010

8 Severe Drought Regions

Sep. 2010

5 Severe & 1 Extreme Drought

Regions Oct. 2010

6 Severe Drought Regions

Nov. 2010

Oil plume

July 2010: NRCS undertakes major step for avian and wetlands conservation = MBHI

• Invested $40M to create >190 K hectares of inland wetlands. Provided

freshwater wetland habitat away from coastal areas and during the extreme summer 2010 drought and subsequently.

• A 3-year multi-regional assessment, focused on waterbird communities and food resources.

• Outcome: Science-based knowledge for current and future habitat

conservation and management by NRCS and its partners

Assess waterbird communities and resources across 6 states and 4 ecoregions with MBHI enrollments

MBHI Principal Investigators

1. Dr. Rick M. Kaminski, Mississippi State University 2. Dr. Michael G. Brasher, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 3. Dr. Brian Davis, Mississippi State University 4. Dr. Lisa Webb, Missouri Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit, University of Missouri 5. Dr. Francisco J. Vilella, USGS Mississippi

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State University

6. Dr. Guiming Wang, Mississippi State University

MBHI Graduate Students (n = 9) 7 US states + 1 Canadian Province

Ph.D. Students 1. David Fishman, Mississippi State University (Quebec, Canada) 2. Amy Alford, Mississippi State University (Ohio/Louisiana) 3. Justyn Foth, Mississippi State University (Missouri) 4. Joe Lancaster, MSU (Michigan) M.S. Students 1. Jim Feaga, Mississippi State University (Pennsylvania) 2. Joe Marty, MSU (Wisconsin) 3. Matt Weegman, MSU (Minnesota) 4. Jessi Tapp, University of Missouri (Kentucky) 5. Lyn Snoddy, Arkansas State University (Louisiana)

Waterfowl in MBHI Managed and Non-managed (WRP, EQIP, WHIP) Wetlands in the MAV

Jessi Tapp, University of Missouri

Matt Weegman, Mississippi State University

Waterfowl

MBHI WRP Weegman

(2011-2012) n = 245

MANAGED

Control WRP Weegman

(2011-2012) n = 282

NOT MANAGED

WRP ACTIVE Fleming (2010)

n = 311 MS

WRP PASSIVE

Fleming (2010) n = 115

MS

Dabblers 1.52 ± 0.11 0.55 ± 0.11 12.3±1.8 7.15 ± 1.6

Divers 0.10 ± 0.03 0.06 ± 0.03 2.7±1.1 1.01± 0.9

All Ducks All waterbirds

1.62 ± 0.07 ~ 3x greater on MBHI lands ~2x greater

0.61 ± 0.07 15.0±2.2 ~2x greater on actively managed lands

8.2 ± 1.8

WRP/MBHI Management Arkansas and Missouri

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

21-O

ct

28-O

ct

4-N

ov

11-N

ov

18-N

ov

25-N

ov

2-De

c

9-De

c

16-D

ec

23-D

ec

30-D

ec

6-Ja

n

13-Ja

n

20-Ja

n

27-Ja

n

3-Fe

b

10-F

eb

17-F

eb

Mea

n da

bblin

g du

ck d

ensi

ty (d

ucks

/ha)

>2x more dabbling ducks on MBHI than non-managed wetlands

Seed biomass ~150% and 21% greater on MBHI managed areas in LA-MS and AR-MO, respectively.

Invertebrate biomass ~40% greater on MBHI wetlands compared to non-managed WRP and public managed wetlands in AR-MO during winter.

Joe Lancaster: Ph.D. student Mississippi State University

• Estimate winter survival of radiomarked female mallards

• MBHI, WRP and other habitats in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

• Which wetland complexes result in greatest individual survival sensu “habitat suitability” (Fretwell 1972)?

Pearse et al. (2012) Wetlands 32:859-869

50% Cropland (flooded)

20% Forested Wetland

20% Seasonal Emergent (‘moist-soil’)

10% Permanent

Forested 54% Moist-soil

32%

Croplands 12%

Permanent Water

2%

Habitat use (≥0.75 survival) of Female Mallards in Mississippi

No mortalities on MBHI wetlands 53% of mallards used MBHI or WRP

Jim Feaga (M.S. 2014) Mississippi State University

• Waterbird abundance and species diversity on production and idled aquaculture ponds

• Waterfowl use of production ponds with use during 1980s

• Invertebrate abundances and diversity in ponds

• Moist soil seed abundance in idled ponds

STUDY AREA

20 species of waterfowl and 18 other species of waterbirds. – Production Sites

• Great Blue Heron 99%

• Ruddy Duck 98%

• Lesser Scaup 96%

• Northern Shoveler 95% (n = 378,765) was the most abundant species, comprising 44% of total waterbird abundance. Other waterfowl species and all other waterbirds comprised 46% and 10% of total waterbird abundance, respectively

– Idled Sites

• Mallard 83% (n = 43,968), which comprised 28% of all waterbird abundance. Other waterfowl species comprised 58%, whereas other waterbirds comprised 14% of total waterbird abundance

• Northern Shoveler 77%

• American Coot 74%

• Gadwall 68%

Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling of mean (�̅�) waterbird abundance (waterbirds/ha) for 28 bird species from 6 production (—) and 4 idled (---) MBHI aquaculture sites in Mississippi during winters 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

NMDS revealed substantial separation (PMANOVA P = 0.005) of waterbird communities by pond type. Axes 1 and 2 explained 49% and 15% of the variation in waterbird densities.

Land use type and density by waterbird guild were strongly associated, with 94% and 90% of the variation explained for winters 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, respectively

Canonical correspondence analysis of mean (�̅�) guild density of waterbirds (wader, diver, and surface feeders/ha) using 6 MBHI production aquaculture sites in Mississippi during winters 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Waders and divers more strongly associated with aquatic systems, surface feeders on croplands and other upland types. Greatest densities (~16 birds/ha) of surface feeders on sites adjoined by milo and/or soybean fields. Cotton fields had inconsistent influence on waterbird densities, may not be a strong indicator of potential use.

Waterfowl density (ducks and coots/ha) in winters 1984-1986 (Dubovsky 1987) was less than winters 2011-2013.

Waterfowl densities (ducks and coots/ha) in 1 production catfish site in Mississippi during winters 1984-1985, 1985-1986, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013.

Justyn Foth: Ph.D. student Mississippi State University

• Species composition and abundance of fall migrating shorebirds in wetlands of the MAV and Gulf Coast regions

• Invertebrate food resources for migrating shorebirds in the MAV

• Stable isotope (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen) analysis of shorebird and soil to assess migratory connectivity among MAV and Gulf Coast habitats

• Assess and quantify (i.e., stable isotopes) presence of petroleum compounds in shorebird tissue, soil and invertebrates

National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) Missouri

Mingo NWR/Duck Creek CA, Otter Slough CA, Ten Mile Pond CA

Mississippi Coldwater River NWR, Yazoo NWR, St. Catherine Creek NWR

MBHI 5 properties in the Mississippi Delta

Gulf Coast Bon Secour NWR (AL), Grand Bay NWR

& National Estuarine Research Reserve (MS), Elmer’s Island Wildlife Refuge (LA)

Study Sites

Birds: • Protocols of the Integrated Waterbird Management and

Monitoring Program’s Monitoring Manual (2011) for whole area counts (sunrise to 1000 hours, 1001-1500 hours, and 1501 to sunset)

• Banding and body metrics (mass, tarsus length, wing cord length, culmen length, molt) of 4 shorebird species:

– Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) – Semipalmated Sandpiper (C. pusilla) – Western Sandpiper (C. mauri) – Least Sandpiper (C. minutilla)

Invertebrates: • Bi-monthly soil cores within a randomly selected mudflat pond • Cores taken along a wetland transect to a depth of 5cm

Field and Laboratory Methods

2011 Surveys

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mea

n re

lativ

e de

nsiti

es (b

irds/

ha) o

f sh

oreb

irds

Production PondsMBHIGulf CoastSouth MAVNorth MAVMid MAV

Mean relative abundance of shorebirds using MBHI wetlands was >8 times greater than non-MBHI. Shorebird migration peaked in early September, with ≈43 birds/ha across MBHI wetlands vs. 2 birds/ha for non-MBHI wetlands.

2012 Surveys

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

EarlyAugust

Late August EarlySeptember

LateSeptember

EarlyOctober

LateOctober

Mea

n re

lativ

e de

nsiti

es (b

irds/

ha) o

f sh

oreb

irds

Production PondsMBHIGulf CoastSouth MAVNorth MAV

Shorebird numbers peaked prior to hurricane Isaac (2012); numbers did not recover to 2011 levels

Invertebrate Biomass (2011)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

July August September

Inve

rtebr

ate

biom

ass (

kg/h

a)

Relative bird densities were greatest in September on MBHI wetlands. Shorebird migration in the MAV peaked, then declined rapidly by late September. Mean relative densities fairly even across coastal wetland sites during fall. Peak in invertebrate biomass on MBHI wetlands occurred in August, slightly earlier than peak shorebird abundance.

Preliminary Observations

On MBHI wetlands, relative shorebird densities peaked ~15 days earlier than the previous year. Shorebird densities in the MAV and Gulf Coast declined following Hurricane Isaac (28 August 2012).

2011 2012

Laboratory Stable isotope preparation of biological material (feather, blood, nail) from 4 shorebird species (Calidris spp.) as well as soil and invertebrate material: - Homogenize and oven dry samples at 90°C and then grind biological material into a fine

powder (100 to 200 µm) - Fill tin capsules with powdered material (800 ± 10 μg) - Samples analyzed in continuous flow isotope-ratio mass spectrometer at the Stable

Isotope Laboratory, MSU Department of Plant and Soil Sciences

Stable Isotope Ecology (migratory connectivity & petroleum hydrocarbons)

In Conclusion… • MBHI providing inland wetland habitats

and resources, BUT management is crucial.

• Incentivized ($) management by private landowners works and should be part of private-land management.

• Results will improve our understanding of the influence of MBHI on managed wetlands and waterbirds

• Did MBHI shortstop migrant birds en route to the Gulf Coast region?

• Most shorebirds are considered ‘resource sampling specialists’ able to locate and utilize newly available habitats

The End