Region 6White-headed Woodpecker

Monitoring 2011

Cooperators

Monitoring Strategy

USFS Pacific Northwest Region

Oregon / Washington

Klamath Bird Observatory

Ecology Program has supporting role in this region-wide project

Overview

WHWO Life History & ImportanceProject Overview

& Questions AskedEcology Program RoleProtocols & Review of First

Field Season

Summary of Existing Knowledge

Life HistoryFood HabitsRange and DistributionPopulation TrendsHabitat UseEcological Considerations

May be one of the least studied woodpeckers

Life HistoryYear-round residentsMonogamousCavity nesting birdsProduce single clutch per year of 4-5 eggsBoth parents brood and feed youngFledge in 26 days, usually late June-early JulyHome range averages about 800 acresReported reproductive success ranges from 23 to 85% (Frenzel, Kozma, Forristal)Adult survival estimated at 65% (Frenzel)Nest success tied to presence of large pine (Hollenbeck et al. 2009)

Food Habits

Primarily forage on live trees, rarely on snags

Feed on insects from May to September – ants, beetles, cicadas

Feed on ponderosa or sugar pine seeds from late summer through the winter

Occasionally sapsuck in early spring

Frequently drink water

Biology and Habitat UseWhite-headed woodpeckers (WHWO) are strongly associated with open, dry ponderosa pine forest habitat. Historically, fire maintained open habitat for this species.

Generally considered old-growth associates, but Kozma (Yakama Nation) has recently found that they may be using younger forests as well.

Also associated with post-fire habitat. They occur in higher densities and/or reproduce more successfully in post-fire habitat than in other habitats. WHWO is associated with mixed severity burn areas. WHWO use large snags (primarily ponderosa pine) for nesting and roosting. WHWO feed almost exclusively on ponderosa and sugar pine seeds during fall and winter, and mature pine produce a more reliable seed crop.

Other Woodpeckers Along Transects

Pileated WoodpeckerRequires highly decomposed wood, ants

Hairy WoodpeckerMore likely to drill for food

Williamson’s SapsuckerEats sap, phloem, ants

Northern FlickerGround foraging

Black-backed WoodpeckerPost-stand replacement

Lewis’ WoodpeckerFlycatching of aerial insects

A number of other species observed as well:

Range and Distribution

From Garret et al. 1996

British Columbia – very rareIdaho – scarce and patchy distributionWashington – rareE and NE Oregon – uncommonSW Oregon - scarce and patchy distributionCalifornia – common in SierrasS California – different subspecies P. a. gravirostras - common

Habitat Use

General Habitat Description:Ponderosa pine or dry mixed conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine and/or sugar pine and Douglas-firLarge mature pinesNest in open forests with sparse understory vegetationBurned forest – in areas with 60% low severity or unburned (Wightman and

Saab 2008) High interspersion/juxtaposition of open and closed ponderosa pine forest patches (Hollenbeck et al. 2009)71% of landscape with < 40% canopy closure (Wightman and Saab 2008)

Habitat Use

Nesting Habitat:Stands with <40% canopy closure, often in openings created by silvicultural treatments or fireSlopes < 20% and lower slope positionsNest sites w/ >=12 large pines (>21”dbh) had highest nest success (Frenzel)

Kozma 2009 Frenzel 2004 Dixon 1995 Buchanan et al. 2003

Bull 1980 Cannon (unpub. data)

Nest dbh (cm) 36.6 68.9 65.0 51.5 45 100Nest height (m)

3.8 3.6 5 5.8 3 2.2

Decay moderate to decayed

71% moderate moderate to hard

soft

Tree species 80.6 % ponderosa pine

ponderosa pine

84% ponderosa pine

76% ponderosa pine

75% ponderosa pine

Douglas-fir

Sample size 36 405 43 21 4 1Study location

south-central Washington

central and south-central Oregon

central and south-central Oregon

eastern Cascades Washington

northeast Oregon

southwest Oregon

Nest Tree Characteristics

Habitat Use

Roosting Habitat (Dixon 1995):Most roosts in multi-layerd standsHigher canopy closure, average 57%Higher density of large live trees (avg. 16/acre) than nest sites

Foraging Habitat (Dixon 1995):

Foraging stands averaged 65% canopy closureForage primarily in live large ponderosa pine trees Sapsucking occurred in dense stands of smaller trees

Population Trends

Breeding Bird Survey trends :

•Stable to increasing range-wide

•Washington and Oregon – trends not significant and credibility measure was “very imprecise” – 3-5% per year change would not be detected

Population declines and range reductions:

•Central Oregon – comparison of density estimates between Dixon (1995) and Frenzel and Popper (1998) indicate a 20% decline in the density of WHWO in about 5 years

•Central Oregon, reproductive success of WHWO has been too low to offset adult mortality, thus the population is declining to the point that occupancy of known territories steadily decreased over a 6 year study period (Frenzel 2004)

•WHWO no longer occur at some sites in the northern Blue Mountains where they used to be relatively common (Bull 1980

and Nielsen-Pincus 2005)

Management Concerns

Management Indicator Species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, BLM Special Status Species, and a species of concern in Forest Plan Revisions Forest management concerns:

•Fires create habitat and thus help to restore habitat for this species. Salvage can reduce snag densities to levels which eliminate “restored” habitat •Dry forest habitat is the target of most restoration and fuels reduction projects that have the potential to either have beneficial or negative effects on habitat:

•Create open habitat•Reduce risk of loss of large pine habitat•However - especially important is the potential loss of large ponderosa pine trees and snags due to prescribed fire.

Threats to WHWO

#1 - Habitat loss

Causes of Decline: Late-seral, single-story, Ponderosa Pine Forests

Timber harvest: Timber harvest:

Replaced late-seral forests with mid-seral forestsReplaced late-seral forests with mid-seral forests

Harvest of large ponderosa pineHarvest of large ponderosa pine

Fire exclusion: Fire exclusion:

Shift to more shade-tolerant species Douglas-fir Shift to more shade-tolerant species Douglas-fir and white/grand firand white/grand fir

Shift to multi-storied, dense standsShift to multi-storied, dense stands

81 percent decline from historical conditions basin-wide

Golden mantled ground squirrel

- survival and densities higher in areas with higher down wood volume

Yellow-pine chipmunk - densities are Higher where there is greater total shrub and live bitterbrush cover

Threats to WHWO

PredatorsA main cause of nest failure appears to be predation by small mammals (Frenzel 2004)Increase in shrub cover and down wood cover increases nest predator populations (Smith and Maguire 2004)

Other factors affecting WHWO

Disease – loss of white Disease – loss of white pine and sugar pine – pine and sugar pine – alternate food for white-alternate food for white-headed woodpeckersheaded woodpeckers

Competition for nest sitesCompetition for nest sites

Harvest units as ecological Harvest units as ecological traps?traps?

Increased road density Increased road density results in increased loss of results in increased loss of snagssnags

Conservation Assessment for White-headed Woodpecker

Regional Goals: Summarize existing knowledgeIdentify important information gaps and uncertaintiesDefine and map habitatIdentify population and habitat core areasOffer management considerations to better manage the speciesDevelop a monitoring strategy

Monitoring & Research Approach

•Broad-scale occupancy monitoring - designed to provide reliable, standardized data on the distribution, site occupancy, and population trends for white-headed woodpeckers across their range in OR and WA.

•Treatment effectiveness monitoring – designed to assess effect of stand-level treatments on woodpecker occupancy and nest survival.

•Validation monitoring – designed to validate & refine habitat suitability models of nesting white-headed woodpeckers in burned and unburned forests.

•Fuels data collection – designed to support modeling of fire-climate impacts on historic and future habitat suitability

Monitoring Strategy

DDXDDXXDDD DDXXXX

DDDXDXXXDDDDDXDD

X

X

D

D

X

DDXDDDXDD

DX

D

XD

XDDXD

D

X

D

D

XD

X

D

DX

D

XX

X

X

D

X

X

XX

D

XXXX

X

X

XXX

X

X

XXD

X

X

XX

X

X

DX

XD

X

X

XXDX

D

X

X

X

XX

XX

DX

XXXXXX

X

XD

D

XX

X

XX

X

D

X

X

X

XDD

XXXX

X

X

D

X

X

X

D

D

X

X

X

X

D

D

X

D

D

D

XXX

D

D

D

X

X

X

DD

X

X

DD

X

X

XD

X

XX

DD

D

XD

XXD

DDXD

X

D

X

DDXDD

D

D

X

XD

XXD

DD

XD

D

DDDDDD

D

DDDD

XX

D

DXXXXX

XDX

D

XXX

X

XX

X

DX

DX

XXXX

XXDXX

X

XXX

XDDX

XX

DD

X

XX

X

X XDXDXXXXXXXXXXDDDXXDDXXXDXX

XX

X

DD

D

X

X

XDD

X

X

X

X

X

DXX

D

XDDXX

X

XXD

X

X

DDD

X

XXXXX

D

_̂XX

X

X

DXXDXXX

X

XXXDXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDD

DDDDDD

DD

_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_

_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂_̂_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂_̂_̂_̂̂_̂__̂_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂__̂̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_ _̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_

XXXX XXXXX

_̂̂_̂_

_̂̂_

XXX

XX

X

XXXX

X

XXX

X

XX

D

X

X

XXXX X

X

X

X

XXX

XX̂XXX

D̂_D

X

_̂_̂X_̂X

_̂

^

XX̂_̂_̂DD̂_DXX̂DXDX̂_̂_X̂_̂

_̂X̂__̂_̂_̂X_̂

X

_̂

X

D

X

_̂D

DD

X

DD

D

DD

_̂

D

D

D

XDX

D

XX

XXXXX

XXX

X

XXX

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXX

XX

XX

X

X

XXX

XX

XX

X

XXXX

X

X

XX

XXXX

X

XXXX

XX

X

XXXX

X

D

XXXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XDX

X

DXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX XXX

XX

XXX XX

XX

X XX

XX

XX XXX

XX

X

X

XX

X

XXX

XX

X

X

X X XX

X

X

X

X

X XX

X

X

X

XX X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

XD

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

XXXXX

XX X

XXX

XXX

XX XXXXXX

X

XX XX

XX

X XX

X

XXXX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX XX

X

D

XXXXXXXX

X

X

X

D

_̂

_̂_̂ _̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂_̂_̂̂_

_̂_̂̂__̂̂_̂_̂_ _̂̂_̂_̂_

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂̂_

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂

_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_

_̂_̂̂_ _̂_̂XX

X

XXX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX X

X

X

X X

X

XXX

_̂

_̂_̂ _̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂_̂_̂̂_

_̂_̂̂__̂̂_̂_̂_ _̂̂_̂_̂_

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂̂_

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂

_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_

_̂_̂̂_ _̂_̂

D

_̂

_̂_̂ D

D

whwo_1420_albers

GIS

D Hist

_̂ Nest

^ Nest_nonB

X NonBreed

X NonNest

whwo potential

White-headed woodpecker locations in Oregon and Washington

Sources:FS NRIS WildlifeBLM GEOBOBNatural HeritageEBird DatabaseSaab – Birds & BurnsKozmaFrenzel

Gather existing location data on WHWO

Mapping white-headed woodpecker habitat

Nesting Habitat Mapping CriteriaBased on GNN data

BasicHabitat Type: Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western white pine dominated

Green forestsHabitat Type: Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western white pine dominatedCanopy cover: >=10% and < 40%Large trees: 8 pines/acre >= 21 inches

Post-fireHabitat Type: Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western white pinePre-fire canopy cover: >=10% and < 40%Large trees: 8 pines (live or dead)/acre >= 21 inchesFire severity: low severity onlyAge of fire: fires since 2000

Regional broad-scale occupancy and distribution monitoring

•30 transects through region•Play-back survey at point count stations•2,700 m random transects w/ 10 point counts each•Transects within pine-dominated landscapes

Monitoring Strategy

More intensive study areas

•Similar protocol, but more intensive•2 field crews managed by Vicki Saab

•Pringle Falls•Chemult

Monitoring Strategy

This broad-scale monitoring strategy was designed to answer the following questions at a Regional scale:

•What are the spatial distribution and occupancy rates of white-headed woodpecker across the dry forest landscape?

•What are trends in distribution and occupancy?

•What key habitat characteristics are associated with dry forest species? This information will be used to refine habitat associations and treatment prescriptions (e.g., canopy closure, live tree and snag density, and tree size)

Monitoring Strategy

Ecology Program InvolvementEcology Program has supporting role in this region-wide project

Transect establishment and data collection

Area 4 (Central Oregon) was responsible for installing 12 permanent transects in 2011

NE Oregon and Eastern Washington also have transects

Currently intend to revisit transects for 6 years

Woodpecker callbacks were conducted at all 12 transects in 2011

Vegetation measurements were done on 4 transects in 2011

Vicki Saab and Kim Mellen-McLean are managing and analyzing data

Woodpecker Callbacks•In Central Oregon

•12 transects•10 points per transect•2 visits per point between April 20-July 7•4.5 minutes •2 people

Monitoring Strategy

Woodpecker Callbacks•Issues

•Transect establishment•Time sensitive•Weather dependent•Road closures•Long distances between transects•Long days

Monitoring Strategy

Monitoring Strategy

Playbacks•2 people•2 months•5 min/point

Vegetation•Original estimate was 1 week per transect for 2 people•Highly variable depending on point•Avg would be 1 week for 4 people•Thanks Amy and Nikola!

Monitoring Strategy

Monitoring Strategy

Vegetation•1/3 of the transects each year•Trees, saplings, seedlings, snags, stumps, shrub cover, DWD, biomass estimates, litter and duff depths

Monitoring Strategy

Vegetation Data CollectionBird and Burns methodology

Monitoring Strategy

Vegetation Data CollectionBird and Burns methodology

•Trees•2,6,20m belts•DBH, ht, crown ht

•Snags•2,20m belts•DBH, ht

•Down wood•Along each transect

•Saplings•2 4m radius circles

•Litter depth•Photoloads

•Ends of transects 1 & 3

Monitoring Strategy

Photoload sampling technique (Keane and Dickinson 2007)

Fuels data collection •Designed to support modeling of fire-climate impacts on historic and future habitat suitability

•Part of RMRS FireBGC v2 simulation modeling project

•Estimate modern fuel loading using photoload sampling technique (Keane and Dickinson 2007):

•Woody, shrub, herbaceous fuel loadings•Duff and litter fuel loading•Canopy base height and tree height

Monitoring Strategy

Results?