Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida · 2016. 10. 5. · Red Cockaded...

2
Instrumental in this endeavor have been Dr. Jessica Miles, Department Chair of the Environmental Science Technology Program at Palm Beach State College, Natasha Warraich, Park Services Specialist, Johnathan Dickinson State Park, and last but certainly not least, Paul Miles, RCW Biologist, J.W. Corbett Wildlife Area. Thank you for helping me. References Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida Kevin Metz Student of Environmental Science, Palm Beach State College Translocation Conclusion The Red Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Conservation History Picoides borealis or the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW), measures about 7 inches in length, with a wingspan of approximately 15 inches, has distinctive white cheek patches and a black and white ladder pattern on its back. Males have a red trace of feathers which run along the sides of their black caps, but are usually not visible. RCW’s have a complex social structure. (Conner, et al., 2001) Living in groups of up to 6 individuals, they employ a cooperative breeding strategy, with helper males aiding the breeding individuals with the incubation, brooding and feeding of offspring. (Costa 2002) The RCW’s diet consists mostly of insects found in or on the bark of pine trees, although they are also known to derive a small part of their diet from seeds and fruit. (USFWS 2003; Hess and James, 1998) The species is highly dependent on very specific habitat for survival. (Beyer, et al. 1996; USFWS 2003) Once abundant throughout the southeastern United States, habitat loss precipitated a decline in RCW populations beginning in the early 1800’s that pushed the species to the brink of extinction (Costa 2002). In 1968, the Department of the Interior identified the RCW as a rare and endangered species. In 1970 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the RCW as endangered and in 1973 the species gained Federal protection with the passage of the Endangered Species Act. In 1979, the Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This comprehensive plan was later revised in 1985, and then again in 2003 and serves today as the fundamental framework for the planning and execution of RCW recovery efforts. Translocation of birds from areas with healthy populations to areas with at risk populations has proven to be an effective method of boosting populations in at risk areas as well as enhancing genetic diversity within the breeding populations of isolated areas (USFWS 2003; Costa 2002 ). RCW’s are monitored by using unique color coded bands on their legs. Typically installed shortly after hatching, this system allows the success of translocation and recovery efforts to be measured, and facilitates accurate population counts. The outlook for the RCW looks promising. Translocation has resulted in the establishment of many new populations across Florida, and strengthened existing ones. This strategy employed alongside RCW habitat conservation and the remediation of areas with the potential to become RCW habitat appears to have turned the tide in the favor of the species’ survival, but there is still a long way to go. The 2003 United States Fish and Wildlife Service RCW Recovery Plan estimates that with full implementation, down-listing may occur circa 2050, followed by delisting somewhere around 2075 (USFWS 2003). A nestling RCW is removed for banding at J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. Photo courtesy of Paul Miles. Limitations J.W. Corbett RCW Population Trend 2002-2015 courtesy of Florida FWC An RCW is transported to J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management area for translocation. Photo courtesy of Paul Miles. An RCW goes to roost in Big Cypress National Preserve. Photo courtesy of the National Park Service. Florida Park Services personnel count growth rings on a slash pine bore as part of a survey to identify potential RCW habitat in Johnathan Dickinson State Park. Costa, R. (2002, October) Red Cockaded Woodpecker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clemson SC. PDF file found at http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/pdfs/rcw.pdf Accessed 4/14/16 Hess, C., F. James. (1998) Diet of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the Apalachicola National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62/2: 509-517. Miles, P. (2016) J.W. Corbett SRTC 2015 Unpublished internal document, Florida FWC United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Recovery plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta GA pp.296 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). South Central Florida Recovery Unit Foraging Guidelines for Satisfying the Standard for Managed Stability. Internal document, USFWS. Acknowledgements The RCW excavates roosting and nesting cavities exclusively in live pine trees (Costa 2002), where resins secreted by shallow wells the birds maintain offer some degree of protection from predators and kleptoparasitic species (USFWS 2003; Costa 2002). Because of this, RCW’s favor older trees, possibly because their heartwood is more likely to be softened by red heart fungus Phellinus pini, and easier to excavate (USFWS 2003; Beyer, et al. 1996). Excavation of a cavity can take from between 1 and 6 years to complete (Costa 2002). Cavity Management RCW’s also require habitat with little to no hardwood mid-story present, a condition that in nature is caused by occasional, naturally occurring fires (USFWS 2003). Anthropogenic interference via fire suppression has allowed hardwood mid- stories to grow and thrive, resulting in the abandonment of RCW nesting clusters (USFWS 2003). Today, regularly scheduled prescribed burns are an integral part of RCW habitat conservation (USFWS 2003). Surveys of potentially suitable habitat are conducted in order to identify it for the purposes of conservation as well as for eligibility requirements for receiving translocated RCW’s. Because cavities take so long for the birds to excavate naturally, as a recovery measure, artificial cavities are installed with very good success (USFWS 2003) in areas of suitable habitat where there is a shortage of natural cavities. These cavities can either be a hole drilled directly into the tree, or may take the form of a box which is inserted into an opening cut into the tree with a chainsaw. Above left: An active natural cavity. Above right: A cross section of a natural cavity from a tree that was downed by hurricane Hugo. This graph is used by the Southern Range Translocation Cooperative (SRTC) to gauge the success of translocation in each area that is eligible to receive RCW’s. It depicts data regarding the number of translocated RCW’s,), the number of active clusters (trees utilized by a group of RCW’s), prospective breeding groups (PBG) and the number of birds that survive to the point of fledging the nest in the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. Note that determining whether or not RCW recovery efforts are successful or not is a bit more complex than one might imagine, but a trend where all of the line data are increasing and the bar data decrease is what biologists hope to see.

Transcript of Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida · 2016. 10. 5. · Red Cockaded...

Page 1: Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida · 2016. 10. 5. · Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida Kevin Metz Student of Environmental Science,

Instrumental in this endeavor have been Dr. Jessica Miles, Department Chair of the Environmental Science Technology Program at Palm Beach State College, Natasha Warraich, Park Services Specialist, Johnathan Dickinson State Park, and last but certainly not least, Paul Miles, RCW Biologist, J.W. Corbett Wildlife Area. Thank you for helping me.

For any interest or inquiries, contact Kevin Metz at [email protected]

References

Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida

Kevin MetzStudent of Environmental Science, Palm Beach State College

Translocation ConclusionThe Red Cockaded Woodpecker

Habitat Conservation

History

Picoides borealis or the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW), measures about 7 inches in length, with a wingspan of approximately 15 inches, has distinctive white cheek patches and a black and white ladder pattern on its back. Males have a red trace of feathers which run along the sides of their black caps, but are usually not visible. RCW’s have a complex social structure. (Conner, et al., 2001) Living in groups of up to 6 individuals, they employ a cooperative breeding strategy, with helper males aiding the breeding individuals with the incubation, brooding and feeding of offspring. (Costa 2002) The RCW’s diet consists mostly of insects found in or on the bark of pine trees, although they are also known to derive a small part of their diet from seeds and fruit. (USFWS 2003; Hess and James, 1998) The species is highly dependent on very specific habitat for survival. (Beyer, et al. 1996; USFWS 2003)

Once abundant throughout the southeastern United States, habitat loss precipitated a decline in RCW populations beginning in the early 1800’s that pushed the species to the brink of extinction (Costa 2002). In 1968, the Department of the Interior identified the RCW as a rare and endangered species. In 1970 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the RCW as endangered and in 1973 the species gained Federal protection with the passage of the Endangered Species Act. In 1979, the Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This comprehensive plan was later revised in 1985, and then again in 2003 and serves today as the fundamental framework for the planning and execution of RCW recovery efforts.

Translocation of birds from areas with healthy populations to areas with at risk populations has proven to be an effective method of boosting populations in at risk areas as well as enhancing genetic diversity within the breeding populations of isolated areas (USFWS 2003; Costa 2002 ). RCW’s are monitored by using unique color coded bands on their legs. Typically installed shortly after hatching, this system allows the success of translocation and recovery efforts to be measured, and facilitates accurate population counts.

The outlook for the RCW looks promising. Translocation has resulted in the establishment of many new populations across Florida, and strengthened existing ones. This strategy employed alongside RCW habitat conservation and the remediation of areas with the potential to become RCW habitat appears to have turned the tide in the favor of the species’ survival, but there is still a long way to go. The 2003 United States Fish and Wildlife Service RCW Recovery Plan estimates that with full implementation, down-listing may occur circa 2050, followed by delisting somewhere around 2075 (USFWS 2003).

A nestling RCW is removed for banding at J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. Photo courtesy of Paul Miles.

Limitations

J.W. Corbett RCW Population Trend 2002-2015 courtesy of Florida FWC

An RCW is transported to J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management area for translocation. Photo courtesy of Paul Miles.

An RCW goes to roost in Big Cypress National Preserve. Photo courtesy

of the National Park Service.

Florida Park Services personnel count growth rings on a slash pine bore as part of a survey to identify potential RCW habitat in Johnathan Dickinson State Park.

Costa, R. (2002, October) Red Cockaded Woodpecker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clemson SC. PDF file found at

http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/pdfs/rcw.pdf Accessed 4/14/16

Hess, C., F. James. (1998) Diet of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the Apalachicola National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management,

62/2: 509-517.

Miles, P. (2016) J.W. Corbett SRTC 2015 Unpublished internal document, Florida FWC

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Recovery plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta GA pp.296

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). South Central Florida Recovery Unit Foraging Guidelines for Satisfying the Standard for

Managed Stability. Internal document, USFWS.

Acknowledgements

The RCW excavates roosting and nesting cavities exclusively in live pine trees (Costa 2002), where resins secreted by shallow wells the birds maintain offer some degree of protection from predators and kleptoparasitic species (USFWS 2003; Costa 2002). Because of this, RCW’s favor older trees, possibly because their heartwood is more likely to be softened by red heart fungus Phellinus pini, and easier to excavate (USFWS 2003; Beyer, et al. 1996). Excavation of a cavity can take from between 1 and 6 years to complete (Costa 2002).

Cavity Management

RCW’s also require habitat with little to no hardwood mid-story present, a condition that in nature is caused by occasional, naturally occurring fires (USFWS 2003). Anthropogenic interference via fire suppression has allowed hardwood mid-stories to grow and thrive, resulting in the abandonment of RCW nesting clusters (USFWS 2003). Today, regularly scheduled prescribed burns are an integral part of RCW habitat conservation (USFWS 2003). Surveys of potentially suitable habitat are conducted in order to identify it for the purposes of conservation as well as for eligibility requirements for receiving translocated RCW’s.

Because cavities take so long for the birds to excavate naturally, as a recovery measure, artificial cavities are installed with very good success (USFWS 2003) in areas of suitable habitat where there is a shortage of natural cavities. These cavities can either be a hole drilled directly into the tree, or may take the form of a box which is inserted into an opening cut into the tree with a chainsaw.

Above left: An active natural cavity. Above right: A cross section of a natural cavity from a tree that was downed by hurricane Hugo.

This graph is used by the Southern Range Translocation Cooperative (SRTC) to gauge the success of translocation in each area that is eligible to receive RCW’s. It depicts data regarding the number of translocated RCW’s,), the number of active clusters (trees utilized by a group of RCW’s), prospective breeding groups (PBG) and the number of birds that survive to the point of fledging the nest in the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. Note that determining whether or not RCW recovery efforts are successful or not is a bit more complex than one might imagine, but a trend where all of the line data are increasing and the bar data decrease is what biologists hope to see.

Page 2: Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida · 2016. 10. 5. · Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida Kevin Metz Student of Environmental Science,

Instrumental in this endeavor have been Dr. Jessica Miles, Department Chair of the Environmental Science Technology Program at Palm Beach State College, Natasha Warraich, Park Services Specialist, Johnathan Dickinson State Park, and last but certainly not least, Paul Miles, RCW Biologist, J.W. Corbett Wildlife Area. Thank you for helping me.

For any interest or inquiries, contact Kevin Metz at [email protected]

References

Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Effort in South Florida

Kevin MetzStudent of Environmental Science, Palm Beach State College

Translocation ConclusionThe Red Cockaded Woodpecker

Habitat Conservation

History

Picoides borealis or the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW), measures about 7 inches in length, with a wingspan of approximately 15 inches, has distinctive white cheek patches and a black and white ladder pattern on its back. Males have a red trace of feathers which run along the sides of their black caps, but are usually not visible. RCW’s have a complex social structure. (Conner, et al., 2001) Living in groups of up to 6 individuals, they employ a cooperative breeding strategy, with helper males aiding the breeding individuals with the incubation, brooding and feeding of offspring. (Costa 2002) The RCW’s diet consists mostly of insects found in or on the bark of pine trees, although they are also known to derive a small part of their diet from seeds and fruit. (USFWS 2003; Hess and James, 1998) The species is highly dependent on very specific habitat for survival. (Beyer, et al. 1996; USFWS 2003)

Once abundant throughout the southeastern United States, habitat loss precipitated a decline in RCW populations beginning in the early 1800’s that pushed the species to the brink of extinction (Costa 2002). In 1968, the Department of the Interior identified the RCW as a rare and endangered species. In 1970 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the RCW as endangered and in 1973 the species gained Federal protection with the passage of the Endangered Species Act. In 1979, the Red Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This comprehensive plan was later revised in 1985, and then again in 2003 and serves today as the fundamental framework for the planning and execution of RCW recovery efforts.

Translocation of birds from areas with healthy populations to areas with at risk populations has proven to be an effective method of boosting populations in at risk areas as well as enhancing genetic diversity within the breeding populations of isolated areas (USFWS 2003; Costa 2002 ). RCW’s are monitored by using unique color coded bands on their legs. Typically installed shortly after hatching, this system allows the success of translocation and recovery efforts to be measured, and facilitates accurate population counts.

The outlook for the RCW looks promising. Translocation has resulted in the establishment of many new populations across Florida, and strengthened existing ones. This strategy employed alongside RCW habitat conservation and the remediation of areas with the potential to become RCW habitat appears to have turned the tide in the favor of the species’ survival, but there is still a long way to go. The 2003 United States Fish and Wildlife Service RCW Recovery Plan estimates that with full implementation, down-listing may occur circa 2050, followed by delisting somewhere around 2075 (USFWS 2003).

A nestling RCW is removed for banding at J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. Photo courtesy of Paul Miles.

Limitations

J.W. Corbett RCW Population Trend 2002-2015 courtesy of Florida FWC

An RCW is transported to J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management area for translocation. Photo courtesy of Paul Miles.

An RCW goes to roost in Big Cypress National Preserve. Photo courtesy

of the National Park Service.

Florida Park Services personnel count growth rings on a slash pine bore as part of a survey to identify potential RCW habitat in Johnathan Dickinson State Park.

Costa, R. (2002, October) Red Cockaded Woodpecker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clemson SC. PDF file found at

http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/pdfs/rcw.pdf Accessed 4/14/16

Hess, C., F. James. (1998) Diet of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the Apalachicola National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management,

62/2: 509-517.

Miles, P. (2016) J.W. Corbett SRTC 2015 Unpublished internal document, Florida FWC

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Recovery plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta GA pp.296

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). South Central Florida Recovery Unit Foraging Guidelines for Satisfying the Standard for

Managed Stability. Internal document, USFWS.

Acknowledgements

The RCW excavates roosting and nesting cavities exclusively in live pine trees (Costa 2002), where resins secreted by shallow wells the birds maintain offer some degree of protection from predators and kleptoparasitic species (USFWS 2003; Costa 2002). Because of this, RCW’s favor older trees, possibly because their heartwood is more likely to be softened by red heart fungus Phellinus pini, and easier to excavate (USFWS 2003; Beyer, et al. 1996). Excavation of a cavity can take from between 1 and 6 years to complete (Costa 2002).

Cavity Management

RCW’s also require habitat with little to no hardwood mid-story present, a condition that in nature is caused by occasional, naturally occurring fires (USFWS 2003). Anthropogenic interference via fire suppression has allowed hardwood mid-stories to grow and thrive, resulting in the abandonment of RCW nesting clusters (USFWS 2003). Today, regularly scheduled prescribed burns are an integral part of RCW habitat conservation (USFWS 2003). Surveys of potentially suitable habitat are conducted in order to identify it for the purposes of conservation as well as for eligibility requirements for receiving translocated RCW’s.

Because cavities take so long for the birds to excavate naturally, as a recovery measure, artificial cavities are installed with very good success (USFWS 2003) in areas of suitable habitat where there is a shortage of natural cavities. These cavities can either be a hole drilled directly into the tree, or may take the form of a box which is inserted into an opening cut into the tree with a chainsaw.

Above left: An active natural cavity. Above right: A cross section of a natural cavity from a tree that was downed by hurricane Hugo.

This graph is used by the Southern Range Translocation Cooperative (SRTC) to gauge the success of translocation in each area that is eligible to receive RCW’s. It depicts data regarding the number of translocated RCW’s,), the number of active clusters (trees utilized by a group of RCW’s), prospective breeding groups (PBG) and the number of birds that survive to the point of fledging the nest in the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. Note that determining whether or not RCW recovery efforts are successful or not is a bit more complex than one might imagine, but a trend where all of the line data are increasing and the bar data decrease is what biologists hope to see.