Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Landscape and local effects on occupancy and densities of an endangered wood-warbler in an urbanizing landscape

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Golden-cheeked warblers (Setophaga chrysoparia), an endangered wood-warbler, breed exclusively in woodlands co-dominated by Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei) in central Texas. Their breeding range is becoming increasingly urbanized and habitat loss and fragmentation are a main threat to the species’ viability.

Objectives

We investigated the effects of remotely sensed local habitat and landscape attributes on point occupancy and density of warblers in an urban preserve and produced a spatially explicit density map for the preserve using model-supported relationships.

Methods

We conducted 1507 point-count surveys during spring 2011–2014 across Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) to evaluate warbler habitat associations and predict density of males. We used hierarchical Bayesian models to estimate multiple components of detection probability and evaluate covariate effects on detection probability, point occupancy, and density.

Results

Point occupancy was positively related to landscape forest cover and local canopy cover; mean occupancy was 0.83. Density was influenced more by local than landscape factors. Density increased with greater amounts of juniper and mixed forest and decreased with more open edge. There was a weak negative relationship between density and landscape urban land cover.

Conclusions

Landscape composition and habitat structure were important determinants of warbler occupancy and density, and the large intact patches of juniper and mixed forest on BCP (>2100 ha) supported a high density of warblers. Increasing urbanization and fragmentation in the surrounding landscape will likely result in lower breeding density due to loss of juniper and mixed forest and increasing urban land cover and edge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alldredge MW, Simons TR, Pollock KH, Pacifici K (2007) A field evaluation of the time-of-detection method to estimate population size and density for aural avian point counts. Avian Cons Ecol 2:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison PD (1999) Logistic regression using SAS®: theory and application. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson CL, Royle JA, Handel CM (2014) A hierarchical model combining distance sampling and time removal to estimate detection probability during avian point counts. Auk 131:476–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewster JP, Simons TR (2009) Testing the importance of auditory detections in avian point counts. J Field Ornithol 80:178–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher JA, Morrison ML, Ransom D, Slack RD, Wilkins RN (2010) Evidence of a minimum patch size threshold of reproductive success in an endangered songbird. J Wildl Manag 74:133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassey P, McArdle BH (1999) An assessment of distance sampling techniques for estimating animal abundance. Environmetrics 10:261–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • City of Austin, Travis County, and US Forest Service (2014) 2014 annual report: golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) monitoring program, Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. Prepared by City of Austin Water Utility Wildland Conservation Division, Travis County Department of Transportation and Natural Resources, US Forest Service Northern Research Station, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences, and University of Missouri, Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, Austin, Texas

  • Coldren CL (1998) The effects of habitat fragmentation on the golden-cheeked warbler. Dissertation. Texas A&M University

  • Collier BA, Morrison ML, Farrell SL, Campomizzi AJ, Butcher JA, Hays KB, Mackenzie DI, Wilkins RN (2010) Monitoring golden-cheeked warblers on private lands in Texas. J Wildl Manag 74:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier BA, Farrell SL, Long AM, Campomizzi AJ, Hays KB, Laake JL, Morrison ML, Wilkins RN (2013) Modeling spatially explicit densities of endangered avian species in a heterogeneous landscape. Auk 130:666–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer TS, Diamond DD (2006) Predicting presence-absence of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). Southwest Nat 51:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach DR, Brauning DW, Mattice JA (2003) Variability in grassland bird counts related to observer differences and species detection rates. Auk 120:1168–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach DR, Marshall MR, Mattice JA, Brauning DW (2007) Incorporating availability for detection in estimates of bird abundance. Auk 124:96–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte A, Jensen JLR, Hatfield JS, Weckerly FW (2013) Spatiotemporal variation in range-wide golden-cheeked warbler breeding habitat. Ecosphere 4:152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elphick CS (2008) How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology. J App Ecol 45:1313–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth GL, Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simons TR, Hines JE, Sauer JR (2002) A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk 119:414–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth GL, Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Fancy SG, Pollock KH, Shriner SA, Simons TR (2005) Statistical approaches to the analysis of point count data: a little extra information can go a long way. In: Ralph CJ, Rich TD (eds), Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the third international Partners in Flight conference. US Serv Gen Tech Rep PSWGTR-191, pp 736–743

  • Farrell SL, Morrison ML, Campomizzi AJ, Wilkins RN (2012) Conspecific cues and breeding habitat selection in an endangered woodland warbler. J Anim Ecol 81:1056–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell SL, Colllier BA, Skow KL, Long AM, Campomizzi AJ, Morrison ML, Hays KB, Wilkins RN (2013) Using LiDAR-derived vegetation metrics for high-resolution, species distribution models for conservation planning. Ecosphere 4:42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Meng XL, Stern HS (1996) Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies (with discussion). Stat Sinica 6:733–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Groce JE, Mathewson HA, Morrison ML, Wilkins RN (2010) Scientific evaluation for the 5-year state review of the golden-cheeked warbler. Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • He HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ (2000) An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecol 15:591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefley TJ, Tyre AJ, Blankenship EE (2013) Fitting population growth models in the presence of measurement and detection error. Ecol Model 263:244–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RA, Thomson AG (2005) Mapping woodland species composition and structure using airborne spectral and LiDAR data. Int J Rem Sens 26:3763–3779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt JW, Weckerly FW, Ott JR (2012) Reliability of occupancy and binomial mixture models for estimating abundance of golden-cheeked warblers (Setophaga chrysoparia). Auk 129:105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby WG (2000) Loess: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Electoral Stud 19:577–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (2008) In defense of indices: the case of bird surveys. J Wildl Manag 72:857–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellner KF, Swihart RK (2014) Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS One 9:e111436

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M (2010) Introduction to WinBUGS for ecologists. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Schaub M (2012) Bayesian population analysis using WinBUGS: a hierarchical perspective. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Komar O, McCrary JK, Van Dort J, Cobar AJ, Castellano EC (2011) Winter ecology, relative abundance and population monitoring of golden-cheeked warblers (Dendroica chrysoparia) throughout the known and potential winter range. https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/grants/wildlife/section_6/projects/birds/e69_final_report.pdf. Accessed Feb 2015

  • Ladd C, Gass L (1999) Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Magness DR, Wilkins RN, Hejl SJ (2006) Quantitative relationships among golden-cheeked warbler occurrence and landscape size, composition, and structure. Wildl Soc Bull 34:473–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TG, Wintle BA, Rhodes JR, Kuhnert PM, Field SA, Low-Choy SJ, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol Lett 8:1235–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 19–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mathewson HA, Groce JE, McFarland TM, Morrison ML, Newnam JC, Snelgrove RT, Collier BA, Wilkins RN (2012) Estimating breeding season abundance of golden-cheeked warblers in Texas, USA. J Wildl Manag 76:1117–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Forman RTT, Kareiva P, Neugarten R, Salzer D, Fisher J (2009) Urban effects, distance, and protected areas in an urbanizing world. Landsc Urban Plan 93:63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Fallon FW, Fallon JE, Heglund JE (2000) A double-observer approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point counts. Auk 117:393–408  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Thomas L, Conn PB (2009) Inferences about landbird abundance from count data: recent advances and future directions. In: Thomson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (eds) Environmental and ecological statistics, vol 3. Springer, New York, pp 201–235

    Google Scholar 

  • North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee (2013) The State of the Birds 2013 report on private lands. US Depart of Interior: Washington, p 48

  • O’Donnell L, Farquhar CC, Hunt JW, Nesvacil K, Reidy JL, Reiner W, Scalise JL, Warren CC. Breeding density influences accuracy of model-based estimates for a forest songbird. J Field Ornithol (in press)

  • Pacifici K, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2008) Effects of vegetation and background noise on the detection process in auditory avian point-count surveys. Auk 125:600–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peak RG (2011) A field test of the distance sampling method using Golden-cheeked Warblers. J Field Ornithol 82:311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peak RG, Thompson FR (2013) Amount and type of forest cover and edge are important predictors of golden-cheeked warbler density. Condor 115:659–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peak RG, Thompson FR (2014) Seasonal productivity and nest survival of golden-cheeked warblers vary with forest type and edge density. Condor 116:546–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the third international workshop on distributed statistical computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF (1993) Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. U S For Serv Gen Tech Rep PSWGTR-144

  • Rappole JH, King DI, Leimgruber P (2000) Winter habitat and distribution of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). Anim Conserv 2:45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathbun SL, Fei S (2006) A spatial zero-inflated poisson regression model for oak regeneration. Environ Ecol Stat 13:409–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidy JL, Stake MM, Thompson FR (2008) Golden-cheeked warbler nest mortality and predators in urban and rural landscapes. Condor 110:458–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidy JL, Thompson FR, Peak R (2009) Factors affecting golden-cheeked warbler nest survival in urban and rural landscapes. J Wildl Manag 73:407–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidy JL, Thompson FR, Kendrick SW (2014) Breeding bird response to habitat and landscape factors across a gradient of savanna, woodland, and forest in the Missouri Ozarks. For Ecol Manag 313:34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DH (2013) Effects of habitat characteristics on occupancy and productivity of a forest-dependent songbird in an urban landscape (Thesis). Texas A&M University, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD, Kearns LJ, Shustack DP (2013) Consequences of urbanizing landscapes to reproductive performance of birds in remnant forests. Biol Cons 160:32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock SS, Anderson DR, Giesen KM, Leukering T, Carter MF (2002) Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. Auk 119:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott TA, Lee P-Y, Greene GC, McCallum DA (2005) Singing rate and detection probability: an example from the Least bell’s vireo (Vireo belli pusillus). In: Ralph CJ, Rich TD (eds), Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the third international Partners in Flight conference. U S For Serv Gen Tech Rep PSWGTR-191, pp 845–853

  • Selmi S, Boulinier T (2003) Does time of season influence bird species number determined from point-count data? A capture-recapture approach. J Field Ornithol 74:349–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton JO, Bax T, Siqueira P, Swenson JJ, Hensley S (2009) A comparison of lidar, radar, and field measurements of canopy height in pine and hardwood forests of southeastern North America. For Ecol Manag 257:1136–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons TR, Alldredge MW, Pollock KH, Wettroth JM (2007) Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process on avian point counts. Auk 124:986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Rubio M, Wilson S, Leimgruber P, Lookingbill T (2013) Threshold responses of forest birds to landscape changes around exurban development. PLoS One 8:e67593

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2012) Texas ecological systems classification project. https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/tescp/index.phtml. Accessed Sept 2014

  • Travis County and City of Austin (2015) Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan 2014 annual report (October 1, 2013–September 30, 2014), USFWS regional section 10(a)(1)(B) permit no. TE-788841-2. Available from https://www.traviscountytx.gov/images/tnr/Docs/2014/annual-report-2014.pdf. Accessed Jan 2015

  • US Census Bureau (2012) Large metropolitan statistical areas—population: 1990 to 2010. Available from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0020.pdf. Accessed Feb 2015

  • USFWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) (1992) Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) recovery plan, Albuquerque

  • USFWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) (1996) Final environmental impact statement/habitat conservation plan for proposed issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of the golden-cheeked warbler, black-capped vireo, and six karst invertebrates in Travis County, Texas. Prepared by Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON) and USFWS, Albuquerque

  • US Census Bureau (2012) Large metropolitan statistical areas—population: 1990 to 2010. Available from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0020.pdf. Accessed Feb 2015

  • Verner J (1985) Assessment of counting techniques. Curr Ornithol 2:247–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade A, Theobald DM (2010) Residential development encroachment on U S protected areas. Conserv Biol 24:151–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren CC, Veech JA, Weckerly FW, O’Donnell L, Ott JR (2013) Detection heterogeneity and abundance estimation in populations of golden-cheeked warblers (Setophaga chrysoparia). Auk 130:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DM, Bart J (1985) Reliability of singing bird surveys: effects of song phenology during the breeding season. Condor 87:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zippin C (1958) The removal method of population estimation. J Wildl Manag 22:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank W. Dijak, U.S. Forest Service, and W. Simper, Travis County Natural Resources, for assisting with GIS analyses; P. Bullard, J. Edwardson, N. Flood, M. Frye, G. Geier, J. Halka, S. Stollery, and C. Weyenberg for assistance with data collection; the many BCP staff, partners, and volunteers, for collecting the territory mapping data; and G. Connette, C. Handel, R. Peak, J. Pierce, W. Reiner and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a draft of this manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by the City of Austin and USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri, 302 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Jennifer L. Reidy

  2. US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, University of Missouri, 202 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Frank R. Thompson III

  3. US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Dr., Anchorage, Alaska, 99508, USA

    Courtney Amundson

  4. City of Austin, Austin Water Utility, Wildland Conservation Division, 3621 Ranch Road 620 South, Austin, TX, 78738, USA

    Lisa O’Donnell

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Reidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank R. Thompson III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Courtney Amundson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa O’Donnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Reidy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Additional information

Birds were banded under Bird Banding Lab Permit Number 23615 and University of Missouri ACUC Number 8383. Other activities were covered under U.S. Federal Permit TE798920-4 and Texas State Permit SPR1111378.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reidy, J.L., Thompson, F.R., Amundson, C. et al. Landscape and local effects on occupancy and densities of an endangered wood-warbler in an urbanizing landscape. Landscape Ecol 31, 365–382 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0250-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0250-0

Keywords