Piping plovers demonstrate regional differences in nesting habitat selection patterns along the U.S. Atlantic coast

Sara L Zeigler,Benjamin T Gutierrez,Emily J Sturdivant,Nathaniel G Plant,Anne Hecht

doi:10.1002/ecs2.3418

Abstract

AbstractHabitat studies that encompass a large portion of a species’ geographic distribution can explain characteristics that are either consistent or variable, further informing inference from more localized studies and improving management successes throughout the range. We identified landscape characteristics at Piping Plover nests at 21 sites distributed from Massachusetts to North Carolina and compared habitat selection patterns among the three designated U.S. recovery units (New England, New York–New Jersey, and Southern). Geomorphic setting, substrate type, and vegetation type and density were determined in situ at 928 Piping Plover nests (hereafter, used resource units) and 641 random points (available resource units). Elevation, beach width, Euclidean distance to ocean shoreline, and least‐cost path distance to low‐energy shorelines with moist substrates (commonly used as foraging habitat) were associated with used and available resource units using remotely sensed spatial data. We evaluated multivariate differences in habitat selection patterns by comparing recovery unit‐specific Bayesian networks. We then further explored individual variables that drove disparities among Bayesian networks using resource selection ratios for categorical variables and Welch’s unequal variances t‐tests for continuous variables. We found that relationships among variables and their connections to habitat selection were similar among recovery units, as seen in commonalities in Bayesian network structures. Furthermore, nesting Piping Plovers consistently selected mixed sand and shell, gravel, or cobble substrates as well as areas with sparse or no vegetation, irrespective of recovery unit. However, we observed significant differences among recovery units in the elevations, distances to ocean, and distances to low‐energy shorelines of used resource units. Birds also exhibited increased selectivity for overwash habitats and for areas with access to low‐energy shorelines along a latitudinal gradient from north to south. These results have important implications for conservation and management, including assessment of shoreline stabilization and habitat restoration planning as well as forecasting effects of climate change.

Highlights

Habitat selection studies that encompass all or a significant portion of a species’ geographic distribution are valuable for species with broad geographic ranges, such as Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) (McKellar et al 2014), Northern Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis) (Noon v www.esajournals.orgMarch 2021 v Volume 12(3) v Article e03418 ZEIGLER ET AL.and McKelvey 1996), and sea turtles (Caretta sp.) (Liles et al 2015)
For the New York– New Jersey Bayesian network, the largest losses in accuracy occurred with the removal of nodes for substrate type, vegetation density, and distance to MOSH (Table 1)
The removal of the node for substrate type resulted in the largest loss in accuracy for the Bayesian network trained on resource units from the Southern recovery unit (Table 1), and accuracy did not improve with the removal of any one node

Summary

Introduction

Habitat selection studies that encompass all or a significant portion of a species’ geographic distribution are valuable for species with broad geographic ranges, such as Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) (McKellar et al 2014), Northern Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis) (Noon v www.esajournals.orgMarch 2021 v Volume 12(3) v Article e03418 ZEIGLER ET AL.and McKelvey 1996), and sea turtles (Caretta sp.) (Liles et al 2015). Selection patterns across a broad distribution can allow managers to identify resources that are consistent and important universally across all sites versus resources that are only used locally by specific populations (Flesch and Steidl 2010). Knowledge of differences in habitat use within a species’ range is important for crafting effective management plans. A one-size-fits-all management approach developed from selection patterns observed for only a few populations may result in plans that ignore vital resources for some populations or set unrealistic goals in others (Oliver et al 2009, McKellar et al 2014). Failure to identify and protect key habitat resources throughout the species’ range, including along the boundaries, can reduce important opportunities for conserving imperiled species (Channell and Lomolino 2000)

Methods

Results

Conclusion