Meeting: Nightjar Monitoring in North America (Conference Call)
Participants: Katie Koch, Ryan Brady, Tara Beveroth, Pam Hunt, Mike Wilson, TJ Benson, Rich Baker, Mike Monfils, Nellie Tsipoura, Audrey Heagy
Date: January 19, 2011
Action Items – TO BE COMPLETED BY 2/16/2011Responsible person: / Task:
TJ / Email the nocturnal bird data analysis proposal out to the group to get feedback and cooperation on the project (should it get funded).
All / Send Mike Wilson links to state nightjar pages, partner acknowledgements, and logos once he sends his email request.
Pam, Nellie & Mike Wilson / Schedule a call to talk about the Northeast integration with US program for field season 2011.
All / Send nightjar and owl information to Rich Baker as he builds momentum for nocturnal bird monitoring throughout MN.
Mike Wilson / Follow-up with Rich Baker on survey efforts in MN to date.
Ryan, Mike M./Dave C., Pam, Nellie, Tara / Send Mike Wilson shapefile or KMZ of existing routes (or starting points from existing routes) for him to use in his GRTS exercises.
Pam / Send out database structure for Northeast/Midwest to everyone on the call.
Minutes:
1. Update on TJ’s Proposal for Owl and Nightjar Data Analysis (Katie)
a. The proposal was received and ranked fairly highly within the USFWS Mig Bird Conservation program, but final decision is pending guidance on budget under current continuing resolution. Katie’s optimistic that final decision can be made in Feb/March.
b. Pam asked about circulating a copy of TJ’s proposal around, and he agreed to do so this week.
2. Prep for 2011 Field Season
a. Synching with Nightjars.org Website
i. The website was supposed to be drafted this week, but it has been tabled for two weeks. It should take four days of work, so it’s possible that a demo website will be up and running in mid-February. Mike anticipates having this group work with him to design website and provide feedback relative to the mechanics.
ii. Full integration of website with data for routes is anticipated to occur for field season 2012.
iii. For WI, MI and IL, link directly to the state websites.
iv. If Mike gets contacted by people interested in routes in WI, IL and MI, please send them along to state coordinators to get them all set for routes in 2011.
3. Sampling Design Framework Alternatives (Mike Wilson)
a. Mike sent an email on 1/14/2011 to stimulate thinking about strata layers for revised sampling designs for US Nightjar Survey
b. Stratifies routes by different strata (e.g., Ecological Landscapes, Human Density, BCR). Selection of strata type and size will determine sampling effort needed.
c. Are these geared for all species collectively, or are they species-specific? Mike has done this for the Southwest, but this can be determined by the regions as they see fit. These likely wouldn’t synch up well with owl strata in the Upper Midwest.
d. For example, CONI and WPWI would likely not line up well and therefore require two different strata.
e. Ryan expressed concern about having too many strata – how many samples would be needed for each of these strata?
f. The danger of overstratifying is diluting the effort that is out there. It makes sense to stratify as much as possible, but that is limited by our volunteer/survey base.
g. Hypotheses (this type of monitoring should be set up to test these hypotheses):
i. Birds are non-randomly distributed among land cover types (this will vary from region to region) (TJ’s analysis will look at this in terms of land cover and landscape context)
ii. Increasing human density negatively impacts nightjar distribution and abundance.
h. Why would we stratify?
i. Answer explicit questions
ii. Ensure adequate sample size
iii. Getting spatial balance and evaluate whether the same mechanisms are working throughout regions (capturing the range of variation needed to answer questions).
iv. Control for certain sources of variation (and identify areas of good and marginal/poor performance) – in Midwest and Northeast, there appear to be hotspots or strongholds for nightjars, and other areas seem to blink in and out.
4. Nightbird monitoring in MN (Rich Baker)
a. MN (Hawk Ridge Bird Observatory) has been partnering with WI since 2004 on the Western Great Lakes Owl Survey (reports are up on the web), and those surveys continue to do well.
b. It’s been a struggle to continue to fund the owl survey, and Rich is trying to bolster the owl survey by merging with nightjar surveys in MN
c. Graduate student at U of MN is doing a nightjar survey project as a 10-year follow-up in the Twin Cities area.
d. Is there something to the subjective observations that nightjars are declining in the metro area and state-wide?
e. Rich wants to keep pushing to get nightjar surveys synched with owl surveys in MN. He is trying to look to SWG for building a nightjar survey in MN, but he needs to convince others that it should be a priority in MN.
f. Hawk Ridge is willing to expand to include nightjar surveys, but this is contingent on funding.
g. US Nightjar Survey Network presence in MN – a handful of surveys have been run (Mike has been in touch with 35 people, and he probably has data for approximately 15 routes)
5. Ontario updates
a. Conducting a survey to determine relative abundance of WPWI by habitat types with a goal of identifying where to target conservation activities.
b. They use largely the same protocol as US, but they may be switching to a three-minute survey period. They track individual birds, but not by minute. Tracking individuals became problematic at points with lots of nightjars (6+).
c. They had a single survey period in 2010, but they are contemplating two survey windows in 2011.
d. They want to develop a protocol that integrates with BBA efforts in Manitoba and Quebec.
6. Integrating Data Management Strategies
a. Hiring a data manager for CCB is on hold for now, and that is contingent on internal funding issues.
b. Mike wants to know how the Midwest and Northeast databases are structured (fields).
c. He wants to be able to have database structure set to help us integrate datasets in the future.
d. In the Midwest, we’ll send data to the MWADC and send those data to Mike’s node.
e. There’s not an issue with PRBO handling time-banded data from our surveys.
f. Structure database needs to be compatible with BMDE (AKN).
7. Next call (2 PM EST/1 PM CST) – Wednesday, February 16 2011.
a. Owls – second half of that call
b. Data Management – integrating with PRBO (AKN) and CCB work.
1