, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota

  • David E. Naugle
  • Rex R. Johnson
  • Michael E. Estey
  • Kenneth F. Higgins


Resource managers confronted with preserving ecosystems for prairie wetland birds in fragmented landscapes require landscape studies that direct conservation efforts over broad geographic regions. We investigated the role of local and landscape factors affecting habitat suitability by integrating remotely sensed wetland and land-cover data with wetland bird habitat models. We linked habitat models with locations of easement and fee-title wetlands to evaluate spatial location and extent of protected, suitable habitat. We also simulated impacts of the loss of small wetlands on suitability of larger wetlands for mobile species that use multiple wetlands. Lastly, we evaluated the efficacy of waterfowl habitat programs in preserving suitable habitat for nongame wetland bird species to recommend strategies for maximizing regional landscape connectivity. Regional databases constructed for this study indicate that easement and fee-title tracts encompass 13.9% (1.2 million ha) of land area and protect 19.8% of the wetlands in eastern South Dakota, USA. Proportion of protected wetlands is highest for semi-permanent (32.3%), intermediate for seasonal (25.6%), and lowest for temporary wetlands (15.8%). A stratified, two-stage cluster sample was used to randomly select 834 semi-permanent and seasonal wetlands that were surveyed for birds in 1995 and 1996. Logistic analyses indicate that habitat suitability for some species (e.g., Virginia rail, pied-billed grebe) is related to local vegetation conditions within wetlands, while suitability for others (e.g., northern pintail, black tern) is related to landscape structure at larger scales. As a result, unfragmented prairie wetland landscapes (i.e., areas with wetland complexes embedded within upland grasslands) provide habitat for more species than isolated wetlands in tillage fields. Models developed from survey wetlands were used to classify habitat suitability for all semi-permanent and seasonal wetlands in eastern South Dakota. Small wetlands are critical components of the surrounding landscape that influence habitat suitability of larger wetlands. Models used to reclassify suitability of larger remaining wetlands after small wetlands (<0.5 ha) were removed indicate that species most vulnerable to loss of small wetlands are vagile species that exploit resources over broad spatial scales. Number of wetlands suitable for northern pintails, a mobile species that uses multiple wetlands within a season, decreased 20.7% when wetlands <0.5 ha were removed. Historic paradigms dictating waterfowl habitat protection efforts also have conserved habitat for nongame bird species. Modern paradigms that acknowledge the importance of small shallow wetlands to breeding waterfowl have shifted the focus of protection towards preserving habitat for species that occupy more abundant seasonal wetlands. Cessation of protection efforts would result in further fragmentation of regional wetland landscapes. We recommend that wetlands be acquired not only to consolidate suitable habitat within protected core areas but also to ensure that core areas coalesce to preserve connectivity among regional wetland landscapes.

Key Words

habitat fragmentation landscapes nongame Prairie Pothole Region small wetlands South Dakota waterfowl wetland birds wetland protection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Askins, R. A., M. J. Philbrick, and D. S. Sugeno. 1987. Relationship between the regional abundance of forest and the composition of forest bird communities. Biological Conservation 39:129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, A. W. and C. E. Poulton. 1968. Plant communities and environmental relationships in a portion of the Tillamook burn, Northwestern oregon. Ecology 49:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beintema, A. J. 1997. European black terns (Chlidonias niger) in trouble: examples of dietary problems. Colonial Waterbirds 20: 558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bissonette, J. A. (ed.). 1997. Wildlife and Landscape Ecology. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, M. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colwell, M. A. and J. R. Jehl, Jr. 1994. Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). p. 1–20. In A. Poole and F. B. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, Number 83. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Cowardin, L. M., T. L. Shaffer, and P. M. Arnold. 1995. Evluation of duck habitat and estimation of duck population sizes with a remote-sensing-based system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Biological Survey, Washington, DC, USA. Biological Science Report 2.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, D. R. 1970. Analysis of Binary Data. Chapman and Hall, London, England.Google Scholar
  9. Drewien, R. C. 1968. Ecological relationships of breeding bluewinged teal to prairie potholes. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Duebbert, H. F., J. T. Lokemoen, and D. E. Sharp. 1983. Concentrated nesting of mallards and gadwalls on Miller Lake Island, North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:729–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn, E. H. and D. J. Agro. 1995. Black tern (Chlidonias niger). p. 1–24. In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America Number 147. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, USA, and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Dzubin, A. 1969. Comments on carrying capacity of small ponds for ducks and possible effects of density on mallard production. p. 138–160. In Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Number 6, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Estey, M. E. 1998. Characteristics and distribution of protected wetland basins in eastern South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota State University. Brookings, SD, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Farmer, A. H. and A. H. Parent. 1997. Effects of landscape on shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99:698–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flather, C. H. and J. R. Sauer. 1996. Using landscape ecology to test hypotheses about large-scale abundance patterns in migratory birds. Ecology 77:28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosiacs: the Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  17. Freeland, J. A., J. L. Richardson, and L. A. Foss. 1999. Soil indicators of agricultural impacts on northern prairie wetlands: Cottonwood Lake Research Area, North Dakota, USA. Wetlands 19: 56–64.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbs, J. P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13: 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbs, J. P. and S. M. Melvin. 1993. Call-response surveys for monitoring breeding waterbirds. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbs, J. P. and S. M. Melvin. 1997. Power to detect trends in waterbird abundance with call-response surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1262–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwood, R. J., A. B. Sargeant, D. H. Johnson, L. M. Cowardin, and T. L. Shaffer. 1995. Factors associated with duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. Wildlife Monographs. Number 128.Google Scholar
  22. Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12:749–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansson, L. and P. Angelstam. 1991. Landscape ecology as a theoretical basis for nature conservation. Landscape Ecology 5:191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hensher, D. and L. W. Johnson. 1981. Applied Discrete Choice Modelling. Croom Helm, London, England.Google Scholar
  25. Hestbeck, J. B. 1996. Northern pintails: have the paradigms changed? p. 45–49 In J. T. Ratti and J. H. Giudice (eds.) Seventh International Waterfowl Symposium. Ducks Unlimited, Institute for Wetlands and Waterfowl Research, Memphis, TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Higgins, K. F., L. M. Kirsch, A. T. Klett, and H. W. Miller. 1992. Waterfowl production on the Woodworth Station in south-central North Dakota, 1965–1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC, USA. Resource Publication 180.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. H. and J. W. Grier. 1988. Determinants of breeding distributions of ducks. Wildlife Monographs. Number 100.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, R. R. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Habitat use by breeding Virginia rails and soras. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, R. R. and K. F. Higgins. 1997. Wetland resources of eastern South Dakota. South Dakota State University. Brookings, SD, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, R. R. and K. F. Higgins. 1998. Bias in quadrat-derived estimates of number of prairie wetlands. Wetlands 18:329–334.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, R. R., K. F. Higgins, D. E. Naugle, and J. A. Jenks. 1999. A comparison of sampling techniques for estimating number of wetlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:103–108.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, R. R., D. E. Naugle, M. E. Estey, and K. F. Higgins. 1996. Characteristics of eastern South Dakota wetland basins and implications of changes in jurisdictional wetland definitions. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:127–136.Google Scholar
  33. Kaminski, R. M. and H. H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaminski, R. M. and H. H. Prince. 1984. Dabbling duck-habitat associations during spring in Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kantrud, H. A. 1986. Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding waterfowl in prairie wetlands-a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Technical Report 3.Google Scholar
  36. Kantrud, H. A. and R. E. Stewart. 1977. Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kantrud, H. A. and R. E. Stewart. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude-density of breeding birds on prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:426–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koopowitz, H., A. D. Thornhill, and M. Andersen. 1994. A general stochastic model for the prediction of biodiversity losses based on habitat conversion. Conservation Biology 8:425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krapu, G. L. 1974. Foods of breeding pintails in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:408–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. LaGrange, T. G. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1989. Habitat use by mallards during spring migration through central Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:1076–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lehtinen, R. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages, Wetlands 19:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murkin, H. R., E. J. Murkin, and J. P. Ball. 1997. Avian habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: a 10-year experiment. Ecological Applications 7:1144–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Naugle, D. E., K. F. Higgins, S. M. Nusser, and W. C. Johnson. 1999. Scale-dependent habitat use in three species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape Ecology 14:267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naugle, D. E., K. F. Higgins, M. E. Estey, R. R. Johnson, and S. M. Nusser. 2000. Local and landscape-level factors influencing black tern habitat suitability. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Novak, P. G. 1992. Black tern (Chlidonias niger). p. 149–169. In K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence (eds.) Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Pearson, S. M. 1993. The spatial extent and relative influence of landscape-level factors on wintering bird populations. Landscape Ecology 8:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearson, S. M., M. G. Turner, R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O’Neill. 1996. An organism-based perspective of habitat fragmentation. p. 77–95. In R. C. Szaro and D. W. Johnston (eds.) Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  48. Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richter, K. O. and A. L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound Bay. Weltands 15:305–312.Google Scholar
  50. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs. Number 103.Google Scholar
  51. Semlitsch, R. D. and J. R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12:1129–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sjogren, P. 1991. Extinction and isolation gradients in metapopulations: the case of the pool frog (Rana lessonae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skagen, S. K. and F. L. Knopf. 1994. Residency patterns of migrating sandpipers at a midcontinental stopover. Condor 96:949–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stewart, R. E. and H. A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region, U. S. Fish Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Resource Publication 92.Google Scholar
  55. Stoms, D. M. 1992. Effects of habitat map generalization in biodiversity assessment. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 58:1587–1591.Google Scholar
  56. Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner, M. G. and R. H. Gardner. (eds.). 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  58. vanHorne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Rees-Siewert, K. L. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1996. Influence of wetland age on bird use of restored wetlands in Iowa. Wetlands 16: 577–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verner, J. and L. V. Ritter. 1986. Hourly variation in morning point counts of birds. The Auk 103:117–124.Google Scholar
  61. Vos, C. C. and A. H. P. Stumpel. 1995. Comparison of habitatisolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landscape Ecology 11:203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. Special Report 43.Google Scholar
  63. Westin, F. C. and D. L. Malo. 1978. Soils of South Dakota. South Dakota State College, Brookings, SD, USA.Google Scholar
  64. Wilkinson, L. 1997. SYSTAT: The system for statistics. SYSTAT. Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  65. Winter, T. C. 1989. Hydrologic studies of wetlands in the northern prairie. p. 17–54. In A. van der Valk (ed.) Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Naugle
    • 1
  • Rex R. Johnson
    • 2
  • Michael E. Estey
    • 3
  • Kenneth F. Higgins
    • 4
  1. 1.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of WisconsinStevens PointUSA
  2. 2.North American Waterfowl and Wetlands OfficePatuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceHabitat and Population Evaluation TeamBismarckUSA
  4. 4.South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit U.S. Geological SurveySouth Dakota State UniversityBrookingsUSA

Personalised recommendations