Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Edits through nest success[no version bump]
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
lagarner authored Jan 22, 2024
1 parent 01d592d commit 1eed1c6
Showing 1 changed file with 2 additions and 2 deletions.
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions Reports/usace_2023.Rmd
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -274,8 +274,8 @@ load_datafile("Counts/groundcounts.csv", path = get_default_data_path()) %>%

#### Reproductive Success

Nest success was monitored at five colonies in WCA 3: Vacation, Jerrod, Hidden, Little A, and 6th Bridge. Individual nests of Great Egret (n=250 at all five colonies), White Ibis (n=186 at Hidden and 6th Bridge), Roseate Spoonbill (n=10 at Hidden and 6th Bridge), Black Crowned Night Heron (n=46 at Hidden and 6th Bridge) and Egretta herons (n=101 at Hidden and 6th Bridge) were monitored during ground-based nest checks every 5 – 7 days throughout the season. While Wood Stork nests are usually monitored until nest fate is known, extremely dry hydrological conditions coupled with high nest heights inhibited colony access by the field team. Therefore, overall nest success is not known for Wood Storks in 2023. However, aerial observations strongly suggest all but 10 of 690 initiated nests failed before chicks successfully fledged due to water level reversals in April. Roseate Spoonbill nesting effort was asynchronous as compared to other species, and some hatched chicks were observed during initial ground visits to one colony in early February.
Nest success (P; probability of fledging at least one young, Mayfield method) system-wide showed variation by species and across colonies, but overall wading bird nest success was poor; (GREG: 0.327, BCNH: 0.322, SMHE: 0.482, WHIB: 0.300, GLIB: 0.0397, ROSP: 0.519). Nestling success (0.766, BCNH:0.449, 0.558, 0.665, 0.128, 0.744) and incubation success (0.427, 0.717, 0.863, 0.452, 0.311, 0.697) varied widely across species and colonies. Wood stork nest success was too low to detect, but incidental observations indicate it was effectively 0. Overall dry conditions were followed by small water level reversals throughout the season and were not favorable for wading bird nest success.
Nest success was monitored at five colonies in WCA 3: Vacation, Jerrod, Hidden, Little A, and 6th Bridge. Individual nests of Great Egret (n=250 at all five colonies), White Ibis (n=186 at Hidden and 6th Bridge), Roseate Spoonbill (n=10 at Hidden and 6th Bridge), Black Crowned Night Heron (n=46 at Hidden and 6th Bridge) and Egretta herons (n=101 at Hidden and 6th Bridge) were monitored during ground-based nest checks every 5 – 7 days throughout the season. While Wood Stork nests are usually monitored until nest fate is known, extremely dry hydrological conditions coupled with high nest heights inhibited colony access by the field team. Therefore, overall nest success is not known for Wood Storks in 2023. However, aerial observations strongly suggest all but 10 of the 690 initiated nests failed before chicks successfully fledged due to water level reversals in April. Roseate Spoonbill nesting effort was asynchronous as compared to other species, and some hatched chicks were observed during initial ground visits to one colony in early February.
Nest success (P; probability of fledging at least one young, Mayfield method) system-wide showed variation by species and across colonies, but overall wading bird nest success was poor; (GREG: 0.327, BCNH: 0.322, SMHE: 0.482, WHIB: 0.300, GLIB: 0.0397, ROSP: 0.519). Nestling success (GREG:0.766, BCNH:0.449, SMHE:0.558, WHIB:0.665, GLIB:0.128, ROSP:0.744) and incubation success (GREG:0.427, BCNH:0.717, SMHE:0.863, WHIB:0.452, GLIB:0.311, ROSP:0.697) varied widely across species and colonies. Wood stork nest success was too low to detect, but incidental observations indicate it was effectively 0. Overall dry conditions were followed by a significant water level reversal in April were not favorable for wading bird nest success.
NAs and zeros in the nest success table are used to indicate different levels of uncertainty. NAs indicate a lack of observations from which to make calculations, while zeros (where indicated) denote direct observation of no nests or fledglings, from which a nest success of 0 can be inferred.

\newpage
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 1eed1c6

Please sign in to comment.