My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Whooping Crane Migrational Habitat Use Draft (2)
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Whooping Crane Migrational Habitat Use Draft (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:37:13 PM
Creation date
6/3/2009 9:41:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.100
Description
Adaptive Management Workgroup
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
8/6/2008
Author
Shay Howlin, Clayton Derby, Dale Strickland, Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc.
Title
Whooping Crane Migrational Habitat Use Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Movement Pattern Summary <br />The average distance moved across the 13 crane groups was 3.22 miles (95% CI: 0.10, 6.34) <br />with the minimum of 0.49 miles and the maximum of 21.64 miles. Movement patterns of each <br />crane group are shown in figures 4 through 15. <br />Trends in the Index of Use <br />The index of crane use was calculated for each monitoring season (Table 8). The systematic <br />surveys resulted in 1168 flights that were completely flown. The 6% of the flights which were <br />incomplete were not used to avoid the bias associated with uneven coverage of the study area in <br />the east-west direction. The estimate of the annual change in the index of use for whooping <br />cranes in the study area was -0.0008 (95% CI: -0.0286, 0.0269). This estimate was not <br />significantly different from zero (p=0.9547). The estimate of the annual change in the adjusted <br />index of use for whooping crane in the study area was -0.0057 (95% CI: -0.0507, 0.0393). This <br />estimate was not significantly different from zero (p=0.8042). The negative trend for each index <br />is shown in Figure 16. The winter peak count of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population increased <br />throughout the Cooperative Agreement period and was not a significant covariate in the model <br />(Figure 17). <br />Activity Summary <br />Feeding behaviors were the most common activity observed during crane group monitoring in <br />the spring and fall and for both seasons combined. Crane groups spent an average 73% of the <br />observed period (95% CI: 63, 82) feeding in the spring while they spent 69% of the observed <br />period feeding (95% CI: 62, 76) in the fall (Table 9). The second most commonly observed <br />activity was resting, crane groups spent 15% of the observation period resting in the spring (95% <br />CI: 5, 24) and 9% of the observed period (95% CI: 5, 14) was spent resting in the fall. Alert and <br />preening activities were fairly uncommon, crane groups spent 7% of the observation period (95% <br />CI: 2, 11) alert in the spring and 11% of the observed period (95% CI: 3, 19) was spent alert in <br />the fall. Crane groups spent 3% of the observation period (95% CI: 1, 5) preening in the spring <br />and 10% of the observation period (95% CI: 5, 15) was spent preening in the fall. Courtship and <br />defensive behaviors were very rare, less than 2% of the time, and only observed in the spring. <br />These results are based on observations made by ground crews and observations are limited to <br />diurnal activities. <br />Habitat Selection <br />Means were estimated for each land cover habitat parameter for the channel, upland, and for the <br />study area combined with the systematic observations (Table 10). Some variables had <br />significantly different values when the means were calculated including opportunistic <br />observations. We chose to report the means based on the systematic sample because they are an <br />unbiased representation for the population of interest. Opportunistic observations are spatially <br />biased because they were obtained with an unknown detection probability and an unknown level <br />of effort. Means estimated from the combined systematic and opportunistic samples are in <br />Appendix B. <br />11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.