BOBO Conservation Plan Workshop

Midwest Coordinated Bird Monitoring Workshop

Port Washington, Wisconsin 4-8 August 2014

If you would like to provide additional input into the Bobolink Conservation Plan: Input on the Bobolink Conservation Plan is being solicited and coordinated through the Bobolink Working Group site on Griffin Groups (griffingroups.com). Anyone wishing to provide input is encouraged to do so via the discussions on the site, which anyone can join. These notes plus breakout session results and presentations given during the workshop will all be posted on the site.

Participants: TJ Benson (Illinois Natural History Survey), Ryan Drum (USFWS), Bruce Ehresman (Iowa DNR), Danielle Ethier (University of Guelph), Andrew Forbes (USFWS), Jim Herkert (IL DNR), Karen Johnson, Dan Lambert (High Branch Conservation Science), Lisa McCauley (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Bill Mueller (WGLBBO), Michael North (MN DNR), Kim Peters (Vermont Center for Ecostudies), Rachael Pierce (USFWS), Judy Pollock (Audubon Chicago Region), Rosalind Renfrew (Vermont Center for Ecostudies), Chris Ribic (USGS), David Sample (Wisconsin DNR), Wayne Thogmartin (USGS), Tom Will (USFWS).

4 August 2014

Overview of the Bobolink Conservation Planning process – Tom Will, Roz Renfrew

  • The meeting opened with a discussion about the objectives of the plan, focusing on fundamental objectives. Fundamental objectives are values-based (i.e., values we share, the ‘why’ of what we’re doing), and the groupacknowledged that we will need to eventually incorporate the values of other stakeholders. The goal of the conservation planning process is to wed scientific knowledge and values in order to identify the best and most effective conservation strategies. The process will be a hybrid of SDM and Open Standards (i.e., Miradi) approaches.
  • Tom outlined what he sees as the fundamental objectives of the Bobolink Conservation Plan:

-Maximize partnership opportunities to integrate BOBO conservation with other grassland birds

-Maintain native and restored grasslands at landscape scales sufficient to sustain vital environmental services

-Provide economically viable human communities in association with grassland landscapes

-Provide contaminant-free water resources through grassland conservation

-Establish a partnership framework for coordinated conservation action at the hemispheric scale

-Build conservation capacity at local, regional, national and hemispheric scales

  • General Discussion

-It is encouraging that we are finally starting to look at the full-life cycle issues and limiting factors for BOBO. [Dave S]

-It is great to see the application of an SDM/planning process worked through for BOBO. It’s not going to be easy, but if it were easy, it would have already been done. [Chris R]

-It will be interesting to see how population objectives can be used as tools to design conservation, and how they will be used to frame our objectives and concerns. [Wayne T]

-It would be interesting to move the BOBO plan through the Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) modeling cycle, including monitoring, conservation design, etc. [Ryan D]

-Discussion about the origin and meaning of Focal vs Surrogate species. Do plans for other representatives exist? Are there partnerships? Can we affect the population? Do we know how? BOBO are surrogate for BCR 22, and are likely to emerge as a surrogate species for the Prairie Pothole Region, and we need to engage PPH JV more. [Roz R] Sean Fields = new Science Coordinator. Also noted that IA is looking to use focal species in their conservation planning. [Bruce]

  • Concerns
  • Itwill be extremely challenging to conserve a population of ~7M birds. [Jim H]. We are dealing with complicated, challenging topics, and there are conceptual challenges in trying to look at them through the lens of single species conservation [Ryan D]
  • Are the broader grassland objectives the real fundamental objectives, and BOBO a tool for reaching those objectives? For instance, BOBO conservation can be used as a communication tool, and as a metric for monitoring progress.In other words, maximizing BOBO populations is an objective embedded within the balance of meeting other (economic, human) needs. [Ryan D]
  • Alternatively, the economic and services-based objectives identified may actually represent means objectives, if our primary objective is to affect BOBO populations. Also note that there will definitely be tension among them, as we have what are at least perceived as competing objectives. [Wayne T]
  • The fundamental objectives are biologist-centric at this point; we need to determine when to bring in other stakeholders. [Danielle]
  • We’re starting with biologists determining biological objectives in order to meet a biological goal because that is the nature of a conservation plan, but the means to achieve that goal will necessarily require that we embrace goals of other sectors and interests [Roz].
  • Note that‘humans are here to stay,’ and we therefore need to include them (e.g., economic systems), in the goals and process. [Chris R]. Agreed that we will have to identify a balance between biological ideals and feasible options. [Dave S]

Impacts on breeding, migration, wintering, Full Life Cycle concept – Roz Renfrew, Kim Peters

[Roz presented non-breeding season ecology and potential threats. Kim presented a full life cycle influence diagram with threats as a conceptual tool for Bobolink conservation planning. See powerpoints.]

  • Questions
  • Are agricultural landscapes better for BOBO on the wintering areas than were the natural grasslands they’ve replaced? [Wayne T]. This represents a big, unanswered question, i.e., what is the trade-off between an increased food source (rice), and the negative effects of pesticides used to produce that food? [Roz]
  • Are there any economic estimates of damage done to these rice fields due to BOBO? Can we pay them to make up the difference, and how expensive would that be? [Ryan D] We don’t have exact numbers but recent work in Argentina has shown that crop damage is much less than what is perceived [Roz R]
  • What do we really know about the impacts of the pet trade? If 20-30k are taken in Cuba, this represents a relatively small proportion of the population, but it is pretty significant for Cuba alone (i.e., What if similar numbers are taken in other countries along the route? What if the birds that stopover in Cuba represent a distinct group of breeders?) [Wayne T, Kim P] So far geolocator results suggest that breeding populations all mix during non-breeding, and birds in Cuba wouldn’t represent a distinct group [Roz].
  • What do we expect to happen on the wintering grounds in future climates? Flooding in SA is predicted to increase the availability of seed (Pantanal, etc.), but only in natural grasslands. Flooding actually creates crop failure in rice, which would potentially have negative impacts to BOBO. [Danielle E, Roz R]
  • Concerns
  • We should exercise caution about results of the survey monkey about threats, because respondents may not be aware of non-breeding issues [Wayne T]
  • Note that even if we are unsure about the relative importance of limiting factors across the life cycle, other objectives may raise the importance of implementing actions on the breeding grounds [Tom W]. For instance, funds are usually given for action in a given region regardless of the relative impact in that area. [Danielle E]. Other grassland fundamental objectives may also point to conservation on the breeding grounds [Tom W]
  • Note that “Expert opinion” has uncertainty. For monarchs, wintering habitat wasn’t limiting as previously assumed, but instead it was the breeding habitat in central US. [Wayne T].
  • Note also that threats change, and thus their relative importance changes. Can we incorporate the dynamics of this system into long-term planning? [Dave S]
  • It was agreed that this discussion emphasized the need to identify what the limiting stage(s) are.But also, in reality, all stages are important, not simply one part of the life cycle. [Chris R] We should exercise caution when eliciting stakeholder comments, e.g., if we say that the most important limitationsoccur during wintering, it could be interpreted that actions onthe breeding groundsdon’t matter [Danielle E]
  • Discussion - developing a full life-cycle model
  • Modeling BOBO full life-cycle will be a huge endeavor, and will likely need supercomputers. There is a need to discuss what the questions are (i.e., what are the hypotheses). Then a model can be used to explore what happens to the whole system when you start changing one part of it (e.g., sensitivity analyses). [Chris R]
  • We can build a simple model to begin with, that uses estimates of fecundity and adult and juvenile survival. We can look at how actions and strategies influence each piece, and can test assumptions and adapt them as we learn. [Jim H]
  • Question of how important even a simple model is to our conservation decision-making. Do we need the model to move forward? [Tom W] Note that a simple model would be beneficial even if there are lots of unknowns. [Jim H] If we’re going to put habitat on the ground, the primary goal will be to influence fecundity. The model can thus be helpful in measuring effects of conservation actions, and will incorporate parameters that can be adjusted as we learn (i.e., the model will be informed by actions on the ground). In other words, the model can tell us what we are going to measure in order to know how we’re doing [Chris R]. We can also model conservation benefits of actions in different regions, and the model will tell us how big of a change is needed in any given parameter and therefore the scale at which we need to work to influence it. [Jim H]
  • The model can also be used to identify which stage is limiting, i.e., what is the magnitude of stressor relative to the stage under consideration? We can conduct sensitivity analyses of different threats, and order stressors relative to sensitivity.
  • A very basic model of BOBO reproduction and survival suggests that first year survival is important to overall population trajectory. [Jim H]
  • It isvery important that we document our model assumptions, as well as what we’re doing and why we’re doing it [Chris R]

Quasi extinction analyses– Wayne T

General Discussion

  • Assumptions of quasi-extinction analyses:
  • patterns in the past will continue;
  • populations are closed within BCRs (for all BCR-level information)

Side discussion about CRP: CRP change is not expected to impact BOBOs as much as a HESP because BOBOs use other habitats as well. For example, in the PPP region, ~10% of BOBO population occursin CRP or adjacent lands.The rest are on other habitats. Also, BCR 11 is most aligned with CRP implementation, but BOBO population decrease in BCR 11 in recent years is likely tied to loss of all grassland types to crops (i.e., not just CRP conversion). Also, population fluctuates a lot over time due to water level fluctuations that impact habitat availability [Ryan D]. Because we are losing more ‘other’ grasslands (i.e., not CRP) – it’s important that we don’t lose track and focus too extensively on CRP changes [Jim H].

  • We can use the QE approach and the BCR estimates presented to validate our population models. For instance, we can use estimates to check our assumption that past trends mimic future trends, to assess how far out in time our predictions hold, and to determine if it is preferable to look at trends via short-term intervals.[Ryan D]
  • Relative density estimates presented are based on PIF estimates. Metric -- in each BCR, the relative density as compared to highest density BCR (1-5 scale). Is it possible to assess the assumption that past trends mimic future trends?

Regional population objectives at the total population and BCR scales – Jim H, Roz R

General Discussion

  • Jim presented on possible solution at the BCR scale that yields an overall stable trend (scaled by the current trend)
  • The model results in a stable (0%) trend in 10 years, which is then held stable years 11-30
  • Population estimates are calculated and raw density/area within each BCR where BOBOs occur was then calculated
  • Jim H noted that he tried running status quo (current trends) through the spreadsheet model, and this resulted in small, decreasing populations continuing to get smaller and large, increasing populations continuing toget larger (i.e., it was like compounding interest). In reality, however, there would be diminishing returns over time in the increasing BCRs. Eventually the model reached an overall positive population trend. This is because it assumedclosed populations in each BCR. This assumption needs to be accounted for in order to make the model more realistic, especially at longer time intervals.
  • We need to focus, in part, on gaining a better understanding of how conservation actions move any of the 'state' boxes (survival or reproduction) [Jim H]. In other words, how do our actions influence demography and get us to our goals?
  • It was proposed that BCR-level goals not be set in stone, but that the overall population goal should. We should consider the spreadsheet a “live,” iterative tool, and revisit BCR-scale status regularly, to see what has changed, if we are still on track, and to define scaled-down benchmarks and goals. [Jim H]
  • Products to emerge from this process will be geared towards different audiences; some products will be more focused on grasslands than on BOBO. [Roz R]
  • It was generally agreed that this modelling exercise is very helpful, and that taking this approach will help create bridges between biological goals and socioeconomic-based alternatives to get there.

Questions

  • How can we measure our success in ‘contributing to conservation of other grassland species?’ [Wayne T] We can do it qualitatively, but not probably not quantitatively. [Jim H]
  • Should our goal rather be to focus primarilyon areas with negative trends, and to simply keep positive BCRs positive as long as possible?For instance, if trends in a BCR are negative, we should focus on getting them to zero as soon as possible. If they are positive, they’ll likely eventually come down to zero. [Ryan D]
  • What are BCRs actually capable of? According to the original model, some BCRs would increase by 200%, some would decrease by 85%. When highs and lows were constrained, more realistic numbers were generated, while still reaching overall population goals. This scenario points to the need to focus on significantly reducing negative trends [Jim H, Roz R].
  • Are we helpless to influence fecundity on the ground? Current research suggests that we can't increase the number of offspring produced per female, but we can increase the number of young produced overall by increasing numbers of breeding females. However, questions remain: Were they not breeding before? Did we actually increase numbers or just move birds around? [Chris R]
  • We have exacerbated the interactions between predator and prey by condensing them into smaller and smaller habitat patches. Do we know how to fix this? [Chris R – current answer is ‘no’]
  • Are birds being shoved into suboptimal, sink habitats (e.g., increases in BCR 17 and 18)? If so, there is a potential danger to setting BCR goals, but this shouldn’t affect our overall goal [Ryan D]
  • Do we care what final distribution of birds is, or do we really only care about total population trend and size? This is something we need to think about when setting goals. [Ryan D, Dave S]

Concerns

  • At the population scale, even maintaining stability over the long run may be unrealistic (and difficult at best). [Jim H]
  • It may be okay to set overall population goal at 85% of present, because 50 years ago BOBO were at an artificially high level in the eastern portion of the range. [Dave S]
  • Concern was expressed about whether the 10-year goal of reaching 0% trend is realistic, particularly because the future is heavily driven by private land owner decisions. [Dave S] Furthermore, there will be a lag between implementation and results. Will we be able to detect whether we’re on track, especially at the 10 year goal period? It may take 20 years to detect what happened during years 1-10. [Wayne T]
  • We also need to be concerned about the long-term stability of populations, particularly at the BCR scale, even if we reach goals. We need a better understanding of whether these goal populations will be large enough to guard against stochastic losses. [Wayne T]
  • Whichever models and goals we use, we need to acknowledge and incorporate carrying capacity limits as well as diminishing returns (i.e., earlier changes are likely to have more impact, and changes in larger proportion areas will have more impact). [Ryan D] This also underscores the importance of understanding parameters at full life-cycle scale (adult survival, survival on wintering grounds). In other words, do we need to influence a huge proportion of the breeding population to increase fecundity to meaningful levels (for influencing population trend overall)? It may be that we can better address trends by affecting states during winter. [Ryan D]
  • There will need to be significant funds, as well as political will to keep this 'common bird common’. Even Wayne's worst case scenario leaves ca. 2.5 million birds in 30 years, but would leave grasslands in a greatly diminished state. So we need to connect the plan with other grassland values and services, and the potential significance of those losses. There is a vision of a functional landscape that represents a compelling message for the policy arena. We have to make connections with this broader vision to make a compelling case. [Ryan D]i.e., BOBO’s role as an indicator of issues across the landscape must be elevated in communication plans. [Tom W] Environmental communications people know how to deal with many of the related socioeconomic issues, and they need to be brought into the conversation. [Chris R]. BOBO response can also be used as an indicator of grassland quality/health/functionality at different scales. [Ryan D]
  • It was reiterated that linking these goals to landcover and habitat will be crucial and will help refine objectives. For instance, where there is good soil, the ability to influence landowners to enhance or create BOBO habitat is very low. [Dave S, Roz R, Jim H]
  • We need to keep in mind when running sensitivity analyses that management sensitivity can be different from demographic sensitivity.
  • Once we develop strategies, do we act from bottom upor top down? Either/or is a trap – it’s a communication and iteration between the two approaches. At some point we will have to go top to bottom and connect them. To do this, we will need to know what the JVs can do, and see if it gets us to overall goal. It will likely take several years to have consistent population goals. It would be helpful lf regional planning units gave us their population goal for BOBO if they have one, but PIF goals have been determined to not be feasible (e.g., PPPJV evaluated their PIF goals and found they weren’t feasible). Most don’t have this because they haven’t had the time to think it through. Individual JVs have done it for some species, but haven’t tied it to adjacent JVs.

5 Aug 2014