invertebrate abundance near piping plover nests in the
TRANSCRIPT
InvertebrateAbundanceNearPipingPloverNestsintheEasternUpperPeninsulaofMichigan
ThomasJ.FlanaganandJasonM.Garvon,Ph.D.SchoolofBiologicalSciencesLakeSuperiorStateUniversity
SaultSte.Marie,MI
Abstract
Background
Objec?ves
Methods
Acknowledgements
LiteratureCited
PreservaDonofbreedinghabitatandcarefulmonitoringofnesDngsiteshasaidedintherecoveryoftheendangeredGreatLakesPipingPlovertoarecord73breedingpairsin2015.WhiletherequiredphysicalcharacterisDcsofbreedinghabitats,suchaswidthofshorelineandsubstratecomposiDonarewellunderstood,theroleoffoodabundanceonnestsiteselecDonandnestsuccessispoorlyunderstood,partlyduetothenatureoftradiDonalinvertebratesamplingtechniquesthatmayposeadangertothePipingPloversthemselves.WesoughttocreateapassiveinvertebratesamplingtechniquetocharacterizeinvertebratecommuniDesanddeterminewhetherfoodabundancenearPipingPlovernesDngsitesisgreaterthantheabundanceoffoodinseeminglysimilar,non-selectednesDngsites.BioCamsrecordedinvertebrateswithin0.09m2frameseverytwosecondsforfourhoursateachofthesevennesDnglocaDons(GrandMarais(2),Gulliver(2),Vermilion(2),andPortInland,MI).TheBioCamsweresimultaneouslyplacednearnestsatboththeshoreanddune,andatleast300mawayfromacDvenests.WefoundBioCamsweresuccessfulintheirabilitytoidenDfyinvertebratestotaxonomicOrderandesDmateanabundanceofavailableinvertebrateswithoutdisturbingthePlovers.DipteransdominatedcommuniDesnearnestsandwerethemostabundantofallidenDfiedtaxa(p=0.008).TherewasnovariaDonininvertebrateabundancebyproximity(nearvs.awayfromnest)(p=0.436).WhileoverallinvertebrateabundancewasnotaprimaryfactorinnestsiteselecDonforPipingPlovers,furtherstudyonspecificordersandcreaDonofapreyqualityindexmayprovidevaluableinformaDonforfuturemanagementofGreatLakesPipingPlovers.
PipingPlovers(Charadriusmelodus)areanendemicspeciesthatnestontheshorelinesoftheGreatLakes(Cairns1980)andaredisDnguishedintothreegeographicpopulaDons;theAtlanDcandGreatPlainspopulaDons,whicharefederallythreatened,andtheGreatLakespopulaDon,whicharefederallyendangered(Haffneretal.2009).ConservaDoneffortshavebroughtthePipingPloverpopulaDonfromalowof12maDngpairsto73maDngpairsin2015(Cavalieri2015).TofurtheraidpopulaDonrecovery,weneedtobeaerunderstandtheforaginghabitsanddietinordertoenhancefoodresourceassessmentsandidenDficaDonofsuitablehabitatsforthePipingPlover(Cuthbertetal.1999).Haffneretal.(2009)usedArcGIStechnologytodeterminethatPipingPloversuseanaveragelineardistanceof473±53metersalongthesewetsandysubstratestoforageforinvertebrates.GiventherelaDvelysmallsecDonofbeachthatisusedfornesDng,itseemsprobablethatPipingPloversmayselectnestsitesbasedoninvertebrateabundance.WhileweknowPipingPloversarevisualpredators,usingsitetolocateinvertebratesalongthebeachsurface(Cuthbertetal.1999),onlyCuthbertetal.(1999)haveexaminedgizzardcontentstoreportactualpreyeaten,leavingourbestesDmateofPloverdiettobeadeterminaDonofinvertebrateabundancealongshorelineswherePloversfeed.AcomplicaDngfactorinsuchassessmentisthepotenDalforinjuryofPloversbytradiDonalsDckytraptypeinvertebrateassessments.Therefore,thecreaDonofanon-invasive/non-consumpDve,orpassive,invertebratesamplingtechniqueforuseinPipingPlovernestareasiswarranted.AsimplemodificaDonofNaDonalGeographicphotographerDavidLiaschwager’sBiocubewouldlikelyallowforesDmaDonofinvertebrateabundancewithminimaldisturbance.
ThestudyobjecDveswere(1)developanon-invasivesamplingtechnique(BioCam)todetermineinvertebrateabundancenearpipingplovernests(2)usetheBioCamtocharacterizetheinvertebratefaunaavailabletoPipingPloversonthebeachesoftheEasternUpperPeninsulaofMichigan(3)determinewhetherornotinvertebrateabundanceisgreaternearPipingPloverneststhanareasofadjacentbeach.
Discussion
Results
StudySites• TwobeachesonLakeMichigan(GulliverandPortInland)• TwobeachesonLakeSuperior(GrandMaraisandVermilion)BioCamConstruc?on(Figure1)• Constructedusing¼inchsteelrod• A20cmhighA-framewasaaachedtoa0.09m2frame• AGoProcamerawasaaachedtoathreadedrodthatranthroughanut
aaachedtotheapexoftheA-frame• TheGoProwaspointeddownwardandcenteredabovethesquareExperimentalDesign(Figure1)• TwoBioCamsplacednearthenestsite
• OneBioCamwasplacednearthenestattheduneline(within5m)• OneBioCamwasplacedinfrontofthenestatthehighwaterline
• TwoBioCamsplaced300mawayfromthenestsite• OneBioCamwasplacedattheduneline• OneBioCamwasplacedatthehighwaterline
• FreezerpaperplacedundertheBioCam• GoProcameras(3-HeroIIIwhite,1-Herosilverplus)settotakepicturesat
twosecondintervalsforfourhours• Pictureswereviewedandanyinvertebratewithinthe0.09m2areawas
countedandidenDfiedtoOrderifpossible• UnidenDfiedinvertebrateswereplacedintotwocategories
• Largeunknown:anyinvertebratelargerthanahousefly• Smallunknown:anyinvertebratesmallerthanahousefly
DataAnalysis• Percentsimilarity(Pielou1975)-InvertebratecommuniDeswithinsiteby
proximity(nearvsaway)• T-test-Totalinvertebrateabundancesbyproximity(nearvsaway)• ANOVA(systat)-Invertebratetaxaabundanceandabundancebyproximity
(nearvsaway)
WearegratefultoVinceCavalieri(USF&WS)forhelpfulassistancethroughoutthisprojectalongwiththe2014and2015PipingPlovermonitoringteamsforhelpingwithdatacollecDon.LakeSuperiorStateUniversityUndergraduateResearchFundandtheNaDonalFishandWildlifeFoundaDon,SustainOurGreatLakesGrantprovidedfinancialsupport.
BioCams• Successfullysurveyedinvertebrates• Canbeusedforawiderangeofstudies• ResoluDondependentonGoPromodel
InvertebrateCommunityCharacteriza?on• Overallcommunitybyproximity(near,away)(Figure2)
• NearnestsdominatedbyDiptera• Hymenopteramostrepresentedinsamplesawayfromnests
• WithinsiteinvertebratecommuniDes(%similarity)(Figure3)• Meanvalue=52.24%• Mostsimilar–GrandMaraisAgate:82.65%• Leastsimilar–VermilionSite1:36.81%
InvertebrateAbundances• Overallinvertebrateabundancesimilarbyproximity(p=0.436)(Figure4)• Dipteransmostabundantoverall(p=0.008)butnotbyproximity(p=0.142)
• Diptera(21.34±4.70m2/h)• Coleoptera(10.76±4.61m2/h)• Hymenoptera(3.94±1.29m2/h)
BiocamsweresuccessfulindocumenDnginvertebratestoOrderandesDmaDnginvertebrateabundance.However,theyonlyallowustoseePipingPloverhabitatsin2-dimensions.PipingPloverchickshavebeenobservedgleaninginsectsfrombeachvegetaDon(Cuthbertetal.1999),soa2-dimensionalviewmaynotallowustocollectallabundancedata,butsimplemodificaDonscouldbeaddedtoincorporatethisdata.ResoluDonofsmallerinvertebratescouldbeimprovedwithhigherqualitycamera.ThreetaxadominatedtheinvertebratecommuniDes(Diptera,Hymenoptera,andColeoptera)andwerealsothethreemostabundantofthe6representedorderspresentingizzardcontentsofjuvenilePipingPloversnecropsiedfromGrandMarais,MIin1996and1997(Cuthbertetal.1999).SincetheOrdersidenDfiedbytheBioCamsinthisstudycorrelatetotheOrdersoftheGrandMaraisstudy,thissuggeststhatDiptera,Hymenoptera,andColeopteraareindeedamaindietsourceforPipingPloversintheGreatLakesregion.InvertebratecommunitystructurenearnestsitesappeareddifferentthanthatawayfromthenestasevidentbythepercentofcommunitycomposiDonrepresentedbyDipteransandHymenopterans,respecDvely.Althoughinvertebrateabundancedidnotdifferbynestproximity,theobserveddifferenceincommunitycomposiDonmaybeanindicaDonofqualityinnestsiteselecDon.Giventhelimitedsamplingreplicatesinthisstudydata,collecDoninsubsequentyearsshouldbeconductedtofurtherexplorethishypothesis.WhileoverallinvertebrateabundancewasnotaprimaryfactorinnestsiteselecDon,itmayhaveinfluencedfledgingsuccessandchicksurvivalasstarvaDon-inducedweaknesscanleadtolowerPipingPloverchicksurvival(LoegeringandFraser1995).Chickmortalitymayberelatedtothreefactors-qualityofforaginghabitat,predaDonrates,andhumandisturbance(Paaersonet.al.1991).FutureresearchshouldexaminetheimportanceofinvertebrateabundanceandcommunitystructureinrelaDontonestsiteselecDonandchicksurvivalwithspecialaaenDontodetermininganindexofqualityininvertebratepreysources.
Cairns,W.E.1982.Biologyandbehaviorofbreedingpipingplovers.WilsonBull94(4):531-545.Cavalieri,V.,UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService,personalcommunicaDon.Cuthbert,F.J.,B.Scholtens,L.C.WemmerandR.McLain.1999.Gizzardcontentsofpipingploverchicksinnorthern
michigan.TheWilsonBulleDn111(1):121-123.Haffner,C.D.,F.J.CuthbertandT.W.Arnold.2009.Spaceusebygreatlakespipingploversduringthebreedingseason.
JournalofFieldOrnithology80(3):270-279.Loegering,J.P.,andJ.D.Fraser.1995.FactorsaffecDngpipingploverchicksurvivalindifferentbrood-rearinghabitats.
JournalofWildlifeManagement59(4):646-655.Paaerson,M.E.,J.D.Fraser,andJ.W.Roggenbuck.1991.FactorsaffecDngpipingploverproducDvityonAssateagueisland.JournalofWildlifeManagement55(3):525-531.Pielou,E.C.,1975.Ecologicaldiversity.JohnWileyandSons,NewYork.
Figure4.TotalabundanceofinvertebratesnearandawayfromPipingPlovernestsatsevenlocaDonsinMichigan’sEasternUpperPeninsula.
Figure3.InvertebratecommunitycomposiDon(%)nearandawaywithpercentsimilarityvaluesfromPipingPlovernestsatsevenlocaDonsinMichigan’sEasternUpperPeninsula.
Figure1.Aerial(toplep),sideview(topright),andplacement(boaom)oftheBioCamsetupsnearandawayfromnests.
Figure2.MeanpercentageofinvertebratecommuniDes(nearandawayfromPipingPlovernest)representedbyidenDfiedtaxa.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Near Away
No.ofInvertebrates(m
2 /hr)
NestProximity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away Near Away
Araneae
Hymenoptera
LargeUnknown
SmallUnknown
Coleoptera
Diptera
GrandMaraisSuckerRiver
VermilionSite1 VermilionSite2 GulliverEast2 GulliverWest PortInland
82.65% 39.29% 36.81% 67.22% 39.64% 49.97% 57.10%
PercentSimilarity
Percen
tCom
posiD
on
NesDngSite
GrandMaraisAgate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Diptera Coleoptera SmallUnknown LargeUnknown Hymenoptera Aranea
Near
Away