Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 151–157 | Cite as

Evaluating the effects of foraging habitat restoration on shorebird reproduction: the importance of performance criteria and comparative design

Article

Abstract

Coastal development and engineering projects preclude ecosystem processes that provide habitat for beach nesting birds. Management for coastal species may depend on actions that attempt to restore important habitat features and mitigate disturbance effects. However, species response to restoration or other management actions may be difficult to predict or measure. At Jones Beach State Park, on Long Island, New York, a 0.49 ha restoration project provided moist substrate foraging habitat for breeding Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) from 2002 to 2005. We examined whether foraging habitat restoration affected Piping Plover breeding population size, productivity, and fledgling production within 300 m of the restoration site. We found a positive relationship between habitat restoration and the number of fledglings produced per year. However, foraging habitat restoration did not significantly increase the number of Plover pairs breeding at Jones Beach. Our ability to evaluate restoration effects on Plovers depended on: 1) use of multiple performance criteria; 2) a design that allowed comparison of pre- and post-restoration data; and 3) a spatial control that allowed comparison of similar areas that were near and far from the restoration site. Despite the small size of the restoration project, there were measurable benefits to Plovers, indicating that foraging habitat restoration may be an effective tool for species recovery.

Keywords

Adaptive management Charadriidae Performance criteria Foraging habitat Piping Plover Productivity 

Abbreviations

JBSP

Jones Beach State Park

AICc

Akaike’s Information Criteria adjusted for small sample sizes

References

  1. Anders AD, Marshall MR (2005) Increasing the accuracy of productivity and survival estimates in assessing landbird population status. Con Bio 19:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burger J (1987) Physical and social determinants of nest-site selection in Piping Plover in New Jersey. Condor 89:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cairns W (1982) Biology and behavior of breeding Piping Plovers. Wilson Bull 94:531–545Google Scholar
  5. Cohen JB, Fraser JD, Catlin DH (2006) Survival and site fidelity of Piping Plovers on Long Island, New York. J Field Orn 77:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen JB, Wunker EH, Fraser JD (2008) Substrate and vegetation selection by nesting Piping Plovers. Wilson J Orn 120:404–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dean RD, Dalrymple RA (2002) Coastal processes with engineering applications. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, Dugan J, Jones A, Lastra M, Scapini F (2009) Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 81:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elias SP, Fraser JD, Buckley PA (2000) Piping Plover brood foraging ecology on New York barrier islands. J Wildl Manag 64:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erwin RM, Allen DH, Jenkins D (2003) Created versus natural coastal islands: Atlantic waterbird populations, habitat choices, and management implications. Estuaries 26:949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser JD, Keane SE, Buckley PA (2005) Prenesting use of intertidal habitats by Piping Plovers on South Monomoy Island, Massachusetts. J Wildl Manag 69:1731–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldin MR, Regosin J (1998) Chick behavior, habitat use, and reproductive success of Piping Plovers at Goosewing Beach, Rhode Island. J Field Orn 69:228–234Google Scholar
  14. Guilfoyle MP, Fischer RA, Pashley DN, Lott CA (2006) Summary of First Regional Workshop on Dredging, Beach Nourishment, and Birds on the South Atlantic Coast. US Army Corps of Engineers, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, Engineer Research and Development Center, Technical Report-06-10; Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  15. Haig SM, Oring LW (1988) Mate, site, and territory fidelity in Piping Plovers. Auk 105:268–277Google Scholar
  16. Klein LR, Clayton SR, Alldredge JR, Goodwin P (2007) Long-term monitoring and evaluation of the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Idaho, USA. Restor Ecol 15:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leatherman SP (1988) Barrier island handbook. Coastal Publication Series, Laboratory for Coastal Research, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Fer D, Fraser JD, Kruse CD (2008) Piping Plover foraging-site selection on the Missouri River. Waterbirds 31:587–592Google Scholar
  19. Loegering JP, Fraser JD (1995) Factors affecting Piping Plover chick survival in different brood-rearing habitats. J Wildl Manag 59:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McIntyre, AF, Heath JA, Jannsen J (2010) Trends in piping plover reproduction at Jones Beach State Park, NY, 1995–2007. North East NatGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordstrom KF, Lampe R, Vandermark LM (2000) Reestablishing naturally functioning dunes on developed coasts. Environ Manag 25:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patterson ME, Fraser JD, Roggenbuck JW (1991) Factors affecting Piping Plover productivity on Assateague Island. J Wildl Manag 55:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pauliny A, Larsson M, Blomqvist D (2008) Nest predation management: effects on reproductive success in endangered shorebirds. J Wildl Manag 72:1579–1583Google Scholar
  24. Peterson CH, Bishop MJ (2005) Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. Bioscience 55:887–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaffer F, Laporte P (1994) Diet of Piping Plover on the Magdalen Islands, Quebec. Wilson Bull 106:531–536Google Scholar
  26. Thompson BC, Knadle GE, Brubaker DL, Brubaker KS (2001) Nest success is not an adequate comparative estimate of avian reproduction. J Field Orn 72:527–536Google Scholar
  27. Trembanis AC, Pilkey OH, Valverde HR (1999) Comparison of beach nourishment along the US. Atlantic, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and New England shorelines. Coast Manag 27:329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic coast revised recovery plan. Hadley, MA, 258 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilcox LR (1959) A twenty year banding study of the Piping Plover. Quart J Orn 76:129–152Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York State ParksBabylonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyHofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations