Premium
Multiscale drivers of restoration outcomes for an imperiled songbird
Author(s) -
McNeil Darin J.,
Rodewald Amanda D.,
RuizGutierrez Viviana,
Johnson Kirsten E.,
StrimasMackey Matt,
Petzinger Sharon,
Robinson Orin J.,
Soto Gerardo E.,
Dhondt Andre A.,
Larkin Jeffery L.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
restoration ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 100
eISSN - 1526-100X
pISSN - 1061-2971
DOI - 10.1111/rec.13147
Subject(s) - habitat , songbird , restoration ecology , ecology , geography , warbler , occupancy , population , abundance (ecology) , range (aeronautics) , forest restoration , ecosystem , forest ecology , biology , materials science , demography , sociology , composite material
Habitat restoration is a cornerstone of conservation, particularly for habitat‐limited species. However, restoration efforts are seldom rigorously monitored at meaningful spatial scales. Poor understanding of how species respond to habitat restoration programs limits conservation efficacy for habitat‐restricted species like the Golden‐winged Warbler ( Vermivora chrysoptera , GWWA). We provide one of the first concerted assessments of a national conservation program aimed at restoring songbird habitat across its breeding range. We studied GWWA response to forest habitat restoration across two broad regions with opposing population trajectories and assessed factors driving species use of restored habitats across multiple spatial scales. From 2015 to 2017, we conducted 1,145 ( n = 457 locations) and 519 point counts ( n = 215 locations) across the Appalachian Mountains and Great Lakes (respectively) within restored habitats. Warbler abundance within restored habitats across the Great Lakes varied with latitude, longitude, elevation, forest type, and number of growing seasons. In the Appalachian Mountains, occupancy ( ψ ^ ) varied with longitude, elevation, forest type, and number of growing seasons. Detections were restricted to areas within close proximity to population centers (usually <24 km) in the Appalachian Mountains, where GWWAs are rare ( ψ ^ = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.25), but not in the Great Lakes, where GWWAs remain common ( ψ ^ = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.84–0.90). Our study suggests that, even when best management practices are carefully implemented, restoration outcomes vary within/across regions and with multiscale habitat attributes. Although assessments of concerted habitat restoration efforts remain uncommon, our study demonstrates the value of monitoring data in the adaptive management process for imperiled species.