Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2):267–277; 2013; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.266
Original Article
Opportunities and Challenges to Implementing Bird Conservation on Private Lands ELIZABETH CIUZIO, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 927 N Main Street, Pleasantville, NJ 08232, USA WILLIAM L. HOHMAN, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 501 W Felix Street, Building 23, P.O. Box 6567, Fort Worth, TX 76115, USA BRIAN MARTIN, The Nature Conservancy, 32 S Ewing, Helena, MT 59601, USA MARK D. SMITH, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, 3301 Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Building, Auburn University, AL 36849-5418, USA SCOTT STEPHENS, Ducks Unlimited Canada, National Headquarters, Oak Hammock Marsh, Stonewall, MB ROC 2Z0, Canada ALLAN M. STRONG,1 Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA TAMMY VERCAUTEREN, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 230 Cherry Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA
ABSTRACT With >70% of the United States held in private ownership, land-use decisions of landowners will ultimately dictate the future of bird conservation in North America. However, land-use objectives of landowners vary considerably and present opportunities and challenges for bird conservationists. Innovative strategies incorporating proactive approaches to address educational, financial, social, and economic needs of landowners are required to garner participation in conservation programs and practices to create or enhance bird habitat on privately owned working lands. Farm Bill conservation programs and practices provide unprecedented opportunities to facilitate bird conservation at regional and national scales and frequently serve as the primary vehicle for many non-governmental organizations to accomplish their bird conservation goals. We identify current challenges and opportunities for bird conservation on private lands and present 4 case studies whereby partnerships with federal agencies, mainly the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, have proven successful in eliciting positive, measurable outcomes to bird conservation efforts on private lands spanning many North American physiographic regions. The future of bird conservation will increasingly rely upon the ability of federal agencies to prioritize and allocate additional resources to deliver bird conservation programs on private lands and a greater awareness by conservationists of the role of economics in the decision-making process of landowners. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. KEY WORDS agriculture, bird conservation, Farm Bill, NRCS, private land, working land.
The contemporary setting in which natural resource planners and managers work to advance bird conservation in the United States is complex, with myriad environmental, social, political, economic, and technical considerations. With about 70% of the conterminous United States held in private ownership, the majority of land-use decisions are made by landowners (including renters or those using the land) who respond to a multitude of factors with different motivations (Heard 2000). The cumulative effects of these decisions across the country can have substantial effects on the extent and functionality of ecosystems. Settlement of North America by Europeans beginning in the 18th Century produced many changes in continental land forms and vegetation (hereafter, land cover) with important consequences for
Received: 23 August 2011; Accepted: 14 November 2012 Published: 19 April 2013 1
E-mail:
[email protected]
Ciuzio et al. Bird Conservation on Private Land
indigenous wildlife. For example, conversion to agriculture was the major contributor to land-cover changes and has been most prevalent in the grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, and savannahs of the Midwest and Great Plains. Globally, temperate grasslands are the least protected and most altered of all major habitats (e.g., >95% loss of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem; Hoekstra et al. 2005), resulting in their designation as one of continent’s most endangered ecosystems (Noss et al. 1995). Dramatic declines in grassland birds since the 1950s (Knopf 1996) have been attributed to federal policy and programs that favored conversion of native habitats to agricultural uses (Gerard 1995). Indeed, Dahlberg (1992) suggested that the legacy of U.S. agricultural policies in the 20th Century was a dramatic reduction in the abundance and diversity of native plants and animals. Because private land dominates the U.S. landscape, it is imperative for resource managers and planners to develop strategies that inform and motivate landowners to implement ‘bird-friendly’ practices (Burger 2006). To this end, conservation programs implemented by the U.S. Department of 267
Agriculture (USDA) since 1985 have resulted in the application of conservation practices to agricultural working lands, marginal cropland, and wetland restoration. Wildlife has responded favorably to most USDA conservation programs and practices (Heard 2000, Farrand and Ryan 2005, Johnson 2005, Riffell et al. 2008); nonetheless, conversion of native habitats is ongoing (Stephens et al. 2008). Competition in global commodity markets and technological advances are contributing to agricultural intensification (i.e., larger field sizes, ‘‘cleaner’’ cropping practices, landleveling, greater inputs, etc.). The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization projects that world food production will need to increase by 70% by 2050 to meet food demands for an estimated 9.1 billion humans (Food and Agriculture Organization 2010). The Food and Agriculture Organization anticipates that 80% of production increases will come from increases in yields and 20% from expansion of arable land. However, given slowing growth rates of yields of major cereal crops from 1960 (3.2%/year) to 2000 (1.5%/year) these Food and Agriculture Organization forecasts of production may be overly optimistic and additional land will likely need to be brought under cultivation. Concomitant with increasing demand for food and fiber, government agencies and partner groups have worked to develop innovative conservation measures at local, regional, national, and international scales to maintain or enhance the suitability of agricultural landscapes for wildlife. Advancements in conservation theory, wildlife–habitat relationships, and geospatial technologies have catalyzed a paradigm shift in the approach to wildlife conservation by agencies directly or indirectly involved in land management. For example, whereas traditional approaches to bird conservation were primarily opportunistic, this new paradigm shift has resulted in greater emphasis being placed on strategic conservation to include objective setting, research, planning, implementation, and monitoring components linked in an adaptive management framework (Burger 2006, Burger et al. 2006a, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and U.S. Geological Survey 2006). This new paradigm, Strategic Habitat Conservation, underlies the USFWS Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Birds represent the ideal taxon to gauge the effectiveness of conservation programs. Birds are conspicuous, easily identified, distributed worldwide, and occupy essentially
all terrestrial habitats often in proximity to humans. Their relationship with humans is complex, ranging from spiritual– aesthetic to economic and recreational. For example, hunting, bird watching, and bird feeding contributes billions of dollars annually to the U.S. economy (USFWS and U.S. Geological Survey 2006). Because of widespread public awareness, the opportunity to focus on birds in land-use decisions is greater than that of any other taxa. Whereas numerous local, state, federal, and international programs address bird conservation issues, our intent is to emphasize Farm Bill conservation programs mainly because funding allocated to these programs dwarfs all other financial sources potentially available for bird conservation. Our objectives are to 1) outline what we view as the greatest opportunities and challenges to bird conservation on private lands, 2) showcase examples of efforts that have addressed these challenges to elicit positive impacts on bird populations, and 3) highlight lessons learned from our collective experiences.
BIRD CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ON PRIVATE LANDS The potential to influence private land-use decisions to benefit birds is enhanced by the availability of extant or developing science-based conservation plans, including monitoring and data management programs, substantial financial support for conservation, and established public– private partnerships for conservation delivery. Availability of Science-Based Monitoring and Conservation Plans Conservation planning for birds in North America is more advanced than that for any other vertebrate group (Table 1). Birds are relatively well-studied. Long-term monitoring programs such as the Waterfowl Spring Breeding Populations Survey (1955–present), Breeding Bird Survey (1966–present), and Christmas Bird Count (1900–present) enable managers to track long-term population trends of many species. Long-term population monitoring and a detailed understanding of bird–habitat associations provide a solid foundation for planning and implementing bird conservation at state, regional, national, and international scales. Financial Support for Bird Conservation A substantial funding base exists for bird conservation on public and private lands (Table 2). Prominent federal
Table 1. North American Bird Conservation Plans and Initiatives developed since the 1980s, with population and habitat goals for specific groups of birds. Plan or initiative Important Bird Areas Program North American Bird Conservation Initiative North American Landbird Conservation Plan North American Landbird Conservation Plan— physiographic area plans North American Waterbird Conservation Plan North American Waterfowl Management Plan Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative Ruffed Grouse and American Woodcock Plans State Wildlife Action Plans U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan U.S. Joint Ventures
268
Web link http://www.audubon.org/bird/IBA/ http://www.nabci-us.org/main2.html http://pif.rmbo.org/ http://www.nabci-us.org/map.html http://www.lmvjv.org/library/colonial_waterbirds.pdf http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/index.shtm www.bringbackbobwhites.org http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/conservation-plan http://www.wildlifeactionplan.org http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/neotrops/andes/background/09_USShorebirdPlan_01 http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/jointventures/index.shtm
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2)
Ciuzio et al. Bird Conservation on Private Land
269
Forest Land Enhancement Program Partners for Fish and Wildlife Coastal Program
Forest Legacy Program Forest Stewardship
USDA NRCS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) USFWS
Partners
Coastal
USDA Forest Service
FLEP
USDA Forest Service
USDA NRCS
FS
Lesser prairie-chicken southwestern willow flycatcher, greater sage-grouse, and golden-winged warbler Multiple environmental targets
USDA NRCS
GRP
USDA Forest Service
Lesser prairie-chicken, greater sage-grouse, waterbirds
USDA NRCS
CSP
FLP
Grasslands
USDA NRCS
Wildlife habitat; priorities vary by state Coastal habitats
Planning for multiple environmental objectives Implementation of forest stewardship plans
Adding or retaining practices
Wildlife habitat and environmental quality Wildlife habitat; priorities vary by state Environmental quality
EQIP
CRP
Conservation Reserve Program Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Environmental Quality Incentive Program Conservation Stewardship Program Grassland Reserve Program Landscape Conservation Initiatives Working Lands for Wildlife
Shallow-water wetlands
Conservation target
WHIP
WRP
Wetlands Reserve Program
Funding agency U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) USDA Farm Service Agency USDA NRCS
Acronym
Program
Web link
http://www.fws.gov/coastal/
http://www.fws.gov/partners/
http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/comments_flep.shtml
http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/fsp.shtml
http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/flp.shtml
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/?&cid¼stelprdb1046975
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/initiatives
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP/
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/csp.html
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/
Table 2. Federal incentive programs for private landowners that can be used to establish habitat for birds in North America.
resources include the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (1937, US$6.3 billion total), Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934, >US$700 million total), State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (2002, US$90 million/year), and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1989, up to US$75 million/year). Many state agencies have programs to garner research and management funds (i.e., habitat stamps, non-game funds, and tax check-offs). Additionally, non-governmental organizations (such as the American Bird Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, National Audubon Society, National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and others) provide significant financial resources for restoring or maintaining bird habitats on private lands. Established Public–Private Partnerships for Conservation Delivery The primary source of conservation technical assistance for farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners is the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The catalyst for nationwide expansion of soil conservation activities was the Agency’s partnership with local conservation districts, subunits of state governments staffed by a board of directors selected by district constituents with the authority to sign cooperative agreements and receive assistance from USDA. Today, governing boards for the nearly 3,000 conservation districts work with millions of cooperating landowners and operators to manage and protect land and water resources on both private and public lands in the United States. Although the NRCS’s relationship with landowner clients has evolved in response to changing agricultural conditions, congressional mandates, and public concerns, the NRCS continues to work directly with landowners in cooperation with conservation districts. The ubiquitous distribution of NRCS field offices (nearly 1 per county) and established relationships with landowners provides a framework for conservation partners to provide input into land-use decisions. Unequalled Potential for Private Lands Conservation Through USDA Farm Bill Programs The 1985 Food Security Act (hereafter, Farm Bill) included for the first time a chapter devoted to conservation (Napier 1990). Subsequent amendments to the Farm Bill in 1990, 1996, 2002, and 2008 retained and expanded conservation provisions; there are now about 20 agricultural conservation programs affecting vast acreages of agricultural land with a combined funding level of US$24.1 billion (2008–2012; USDA 2008). Farm Bill conservation programs implemented since 1985 have resulted in the application of conservation practices to tens-of-millions of hectares of agricultural working lands, retirement of up to 14.6 million ha of marginal cropland, and restoration of >930,000 ha of wetlands. The importance of enhancing wildlife habitat in the delivery of these conservation programs was elevated in the 1996 Farm Bill. Wildlife conservation is currently an explicit goal 270
for the Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and Wetland Reserve Program. Recognizing the interrelationships among natural resources (e.g., soils, water, air, plants, and wildlife) and the importance of natural– ecological versus man-made boundaries when planning and implementing conservation, the NRCS has begun addressing conservation priorities on a landscape scale (NRCS 2012). Several NRCS Landscape Conservation Initiatives focus specifically on birds (e.g., lesser prairiechicken [Tympanuchus pallidicinctus], migratory bird habitat, and sage grouse [Centrocercus spp.] initiatives). Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative is a new partnership between NRCS and the USFWS to use agency technical expertise combined with financial assistance from the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program to combat the decline of 7 specific wildlife species whose decline can be reversed and the preservation of which will benefit other species with similar habitat needs. Species identified during a collaborative process with partners included 4 bird species: lesser prairie-chicken, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus), and golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). The Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative is a model for targeting species whose decline can be reversed and will benefit other species with similar habitat needs. Although the attention of wildlife conservation groups has generally been focused on land retirement programs (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program), expansion of ‘set aside’ programs is unlikely and probably will decrease in future Farm Bill legislation. For example, the cap on Conservation Reserve Program acreage was reduced from 39.2 million acres (15.9 million ha) in 2002 to 32 million acres (12.9 million ha) in 2008 and will likely be further reduced in future Farm Bills because of federal budget constraints and increased demand for agricultural commodities. The acreage cap on Wetland Reserve Program, the other major land-retirement program in the Farm Bill, was increased from 2.1 to 3.0 million acres (0.8 million ha to 1.2 million ha) through 2012, but this program is small in extent compared with Conservation Reserve Program. Consequently, opportunities to implement ‘bird-friendly’ practices through agricultural working lands programs (such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Farm and Ranch Protection Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative) merit greater attention from bird conservationists.
CHALLENGES Planning and implementing bird conservation on private lands is complicated by numerous social, economic, political, administrative, and technical issues. Prominent among these challenges are 1) landowner mistrust of outside groups, 2) economic considerations in land-use decisions, 3) holistic planning of bird conservation objectives in the context of other natural resource concerns, 4) reconciling differences in wildlife objectives among bird conservation plans and Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2)
decision-makers, 5) administrative impediments to conservation planning and implementation, 6) technology and scientific information gaps, and 7) inadequate human and financial resources to plan and implement conservation. We briefly outline these challenges below. Landowner Mistrust of Outside Conservation Organizations Landowners may at times be deeply resentful of outside interference with their operations and perceived threats to their livelihood and community. For example, governmental actions associated with implementation of the Endangered Species Act may be construed as a precursor to federally sponsored land takings (Peterson and Horton 1995) or interpreted more generally as top-down decisions with little community involvement (Payton et al. 2005). To reverse some of the historic disincentives of implementing the Endangered Species Act, financial incentives (funded in part through the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program) were provided to private landowners in Texas, USA, to enlist their participation in habitat conservation efforts for endangered golden-cheeked warblers (Setophaga chrysoparia; Wilkins et al. 2009). Economic Considerations are the Primary Drivers of Land-Use Decisions Land managed for agricultural production of food and fiber should be viewed as an economic enterprise operated primarily for monetary return (e.g., income from the sale of crops, timber, livestock, etc.) and secondarily for nonmonetary purposes (e.g., aesthetic, recreational, legacy). Consequently, the implementation of ‘bird-friendly’ management actions on private lands requires an awareness of logistical and financial costs associated with various management options and the necessity of providing adequate financial assistance to landowners to offset additional management costs and foregone income (Burger 2006). Likewise, to optimize the use of limited resources available for achievement of conservation objectives, the value of services gained by proposed management actions must be estimated and resources efficiently allocated (Barbour et al. 2007, McConnell 2011). Holistic Planning for Bird Conservation Implementation of bird conservation on private lands is constrained by the lack of consensus regarding bird conservation objectives and a consistent failure to include landowner needs and input during the planning process. Landowners ultimately decide wildlife objectives, so habitat management on private lands commonly emphasizes species of recreational, economic, or aesthetic importance rather than species of conservation concern. However, there are abundant opportunities to inform landowners of management alternatives and bring species of conservation priority into the discussion. For example, in the pinelands of the Southeast, thinning and periodic prescribed burning is recommended to enhance foraging habitat for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a recreationally important game species. Although these habitat management actions address the landowner objectives (recreational species), they also Ciuzio et al. Bird Conservation on Private Land
address the habitat needs of numerous pine–grassland and disturbance-dependent birds of conservation priority. Bird conservationists must be able to speak intelligibly about the effects of management on game and non-game species to stimulate management actions by the landowner. Moreover, accomplishment of bird conservation on private lands is frequently hindered by a poor and often incomplete understanding of functional relationships between natural resource goals. For example, the design and placement of conservation buffers implemented primarily for control of soil erosion and improved water quality influences wildlife use of buffers at the site and landscape scales (Reeder et al. 2005, Davros et al. 2006). Administrative Impediments to Conservation Planning Confusion regarding the manner in which technical or financial assistance is provided to landowners by federal agencies may at times serve as a roadblock for implementing ‘bird-friendly’ conservation practices on private lands. Some of these impediments stem from changes in the responsibilities of USDA agencies and differences between agencies in their ability to administer technical and financial aspects of Farm Bill programs. Other shortcomings include inadequate human resources; a lack of training, decision support tools, and local knowledge; resistance to change; and inability or unwillingness to present management alternatives to the landowner client. For example, the traditional focus on farm- or field-scale planning predisposes many conservation planners to neglect consideration of landscape-scale management when addressing resource concerns that transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Technology and Information Gaps Bird conservation on agricultural working lands requires site- to landscape-scale understanding of bird habitat requirements in relation to productive land uses and conservation practices undertaken to address other natural resource concerns (e.g., water, air, and soil). Research is a critical component of strategic habitat conservation. As illustrated below, new technology may be needed to estimate the costs and benefits of management options and support adoption of ‘bird-friendly’ production methods. NRCS Human and Financial Resources Until passage of the 1985 Farm Bill, the cooperative, personal relationships between trained conservationists and landowners (culminating in the development of a plan detailing needed conservation for the whole property) were the hallmark of NRCS activities. Because the Farm Bill linked farmers’ eligibility for USDA programs to conservation performance (sodbuster and swampbuster provisions of the Farm Bill), the NRCS field staff was charged with determining compliance with the conservation provisions and developing conservation plans for those farming highly erodible lands. Field staff in conservation districts where wetlands were prevalent were also responsible for identifying wetlands that farmers could not alter without also losing benefits. Consequently, the number of clients served by NRCS field staff more than doubled as a result of the 1985 Farm Bill, especially in regions with extensive croplands. 271
During the past 2 decades, NRCS assumed the leadership role for the financial and technical aspects of many USDA conservation programs, including field and administrative responsibilities. Whereas funding for financial assistance has increased with added responsibilities, the number of NRCS staff has declined. Consequently, the traditional conservation planning role of field staff has given way to assisting landowners with preparation of applications for financial assistance programs and providing advice with installation of conservation practices. Lack of human resources has also necessitated an increasing reliance on partnerships to achieve its mission, with the added benefit of landowners hearing the same conservation message from multiple sources.
CASE STUDIES Despite the many challenges faced by governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and landowners seeking to implement bird conservation on private lands, there are an increasing number of examples of innovative partnerships that have benefited bird populations. Described below are 4 such examples. Grassland Birds in Northeastern Haylands In the Northeast, nesting habitat for grassland birds is largely restricted to working grasslands (i.e., pastures or haylands). The Champlain Valley along the New York–Vermont (USA) border is an important dairy-producing region with 146,000 ha of managed grassland (USDA 2007). Forage quality declines throughout the growing season and milk quantity is strongly influenced by forage protein content. Thus, dairy farmers seek to harvest forage in early spring when forage protein levels and biomass yields are greatest (Cherney et al. 1993). However, this harvest strategy leads to nearly complete failure for birds nesting in haylands (Perlut et al. 2006). Additionally, the typical interval between cuttings (approx. 35 days) is inadequate to permit birds to renest successfully. In 2002, researchers from the University of Vermont and the State University of New York-Plattsburgh initiated a study to estimate demographic parameters of grassland birds nesting in managed grasslands in the Champlain Valley. The goal of this research was to identify ‘bird-friendly’ management practices that would allow dairy farmers to operate profitably and grassland birds to nest successfully. Specifically, researchers examined effects of harvest date on forage quantity and/or quality and reproductive success. Researchers found that if hay harvest was completed before 2 June, birds initiated new nests within 2 weeks of harvest. Further, a 65-day cutting interval provided time for birds to complete nesting activities. The financial costs of these changes to haying practices for dairy producers were used to estimate incentive payments to offset opportunity costs for adoption of ‘bird-friendly’ harvest practices. NRCS personnel and researchers worked together to create management guidelines and a financial assistance mechanism necessary to encourage producers to adopt ‘bird-friendly’ management practices. Eligible fields were required to be 272
>8.1 ha, roughly square in shape, and have been used as hayland for 3 of the previous 5 years. The first hay harvest and all associated management, including raking, baling, and nutrient application, must have been completed by 31 May. The second harvest could occur no earlier than 65 days after the last management activity, providing a sufficient time frame for birds to complete nesting activities. In return for following this plan, land owners received US$247– 333/enrolled ha/year for 3 years. In the initial pilot year, 5 farmers enrolled 5 fields (72.4 ha) in the program; 2010 enrollment increased to 392 ha. Researchers evaluated bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) nesting activity on 2 fields (over 3 year) and found 88 nests initiated after the first hay harvest. Seventy-eight of 88 nests (89%) successfully fledged 1 young. Annual productivity was 2.85 nestlings/female/year (Perlut et al. 2011). The program was a success from the wildlife perspective because bobolinks rarely fledged any young from early cut fields. From the farmer’s perspective, they were able to take an early, high-quality harvest in late May. Although the second cut was lower in quality, farmers reported that hay was still of sufficient quality for winter forage for heifers and beef cows. The state of Massachusetts, USA, has recently adopted the practice under their Environmental Quality Incentives Program guidelines. Unfortunately, NRCS offices are understaffed and the amount of administrative responsibilities associated with other Farm Bill programs severely limits the ability of field staff to promote the program. Although the program provides adequate financial incentives for farmers to purchase additional hay if necessary, farmers must have an accurate assessment of their forage requirements relative to predicted supply. Piping Plover in the Northern Great Plains The Northern Great Plains population of piping plover (Charadrius melodus) was listed as threatened in the United States and endangered in Canada in 1985. Despite federal listing, piping plovers continued to decline 6–13% annually in the Northern Great Plains (Ryan et al. 1993, Plissner and Haig 2000a, Larson et al. 2002). Each summer, 25–40% of the Northern Great Plains population (50–80% of plovers in the U.S. Northern Great Plains) nest on open beaches associated with alkali wetlands in an 8-county area of northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana (USA) referred to as the ‘‘Core Area’’ (Plissner and Haig 2000b). Within the Core Area, declines in plover populations are due to low reproductive success associated with high predation on eggs and chicks (Ivan and Murphy 2005). Striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) are now numerous due to increased woody cover, rockpiles, junkpiles, utility poles, and abandoned buildings (Sovada et al. 2001). Once extensive native grasslands have been fragmented or reduced to narrow bands around wetlands that are more efficiently searched by predators (Sugden and Beyersbergen 1984). Furthermore, unmanaged livestock grazing degrades breeding habitat by trampling Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2)
beaches, which creates hummocky and unsuitable nest sites in soft substrates. Since 1994, USFWS, The Nature Conservancy, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, and other partners have been working collaboratively on private and public lands to abate the predation effect. The USFWS and The Nature Conservancy implemented a comprehensive monitoring and predator determent program across the Core Area in 1999 to remove artificial habitats supporting elevated predator populations around wetlands used by breeding piping plovers. Funding obtained through the USFWS’s Private Stewardship Grants Program in 2005 was used to remove planted trees, rockpiles, junkpiles, and abandoned buildings within 1.6 km of wetlands used for breeding. Using Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding, habitat quality was further improved by restoring grasslands in the surrounding watershed, provision of off-site water sources for livestock, and design and implementation of improved grazing systems that reduced livestock use of breeding habitat and improved hydrologic function of targeted wetlands. Landowners were initially queried by partners or The Nature Conservancy staff regarding their interest in various management options. On average, 81 different landowners have provided access to their private lands each year for placement of determent management and monitoring efforts. Additionally, 11 landowners participated in management projects. Landowners with previous interactions with partners were generally receptive to management suggestions because actions beneficial to piping plovers were perceived as compatible with production goals. Fledging rates of piping plovers now exceed the level of productivity necessary to sustain the population 2 out of every 3 years on average (C. Mueller, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). Cooperative efforts in the Northern Great Plains have been successful in large part due to positive experiences of landowners with management of a listed species, consistent and favorable interactions with staff, and opportunities to enhance property management. The greatest challenge to continuing this program has been the lack of a consistent funding by the USFWS to implement management and monitoring. Subject to the availability of additional funding, strong landowner interest and willingness to participate in management actions makes further recovery of piping plovers in the Northern Great Plains likely. National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus; hereafter, bobwhite) populations have experienced a 3.8%/year rangewide decline over the past 40 years (Sauer et al. 2011). Today, active, premeditated habitat management is necessary to restore bobwhite populations. Whereas bobwhite populations can be increased substantially at local levels through intensive habitat restoration and management, instituting this level of management on a regional or range-wide scale is constrained by the relatively high annual cost. Consequently, intensively managed bobwhite habitat is Ciuzio et al. Bird Conservation on Private Land
confined to isolated patches constituting an exceptionally small portion of the species’ range. Reversal of range-wide or regional bobwhite declines necessitates the cooperation of many agencies and the delivery of strategically targeted conservation. In 1998, the Directors of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies requested that the Southeast Quail Study Group Technical Committee (now the National Bobwhite Technical Committee) prepare a regional, habitat-based recovery plan for the northern bobwhite. The resulting document, the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI, Dimmick et al. 2002), was a quantitative, habitat-based plan for bobwhite recovery throughout 15 Bird Conservation Regions, which included the majority of bobwhite populations. The goal of the NBCI was to restore bobwhite populations range-wide to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in 1980. The NBCI facilitates comprehensive engagement from private landowners, state and federal agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Now staffed with a National Director, Science Coordinator, Communications Specialist, and Agricultural Conservation Coordinator, the NBCI has forged working partnerships with groups offering further opportunities to expand bobwhite restoration efforts. Recognizing the potential benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs for bobwhites, the NBCI has worked closely with USDA’s Farm Service Agency and NRCS. For example, NBCI worked with Farm Service Agency to establish 2 ‘quail-friendly’ practices in the continuous Conservation Reserve Program: CP33 Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds and the CP36 Longleaf Pine Initiative. The CP33 practice was unique in 3 regards: 1) CP33 was the first Farm Bill conservation practice developed specifically to address the conservation priorities of a national bird conservation initiative; 2) CP33 was the first practice that mandated a rigorous program-wide monitoring program; and 3) the practice simultaneously addressed other resource concerns (e.g., soil erosion, nutrient retention) while adequately compensating producers for land taken out of production. The benefits of habitat buffers have been well-documented at the farm scale for breeding (Smith et al. 2005a, Riddle et al. 2008, Conover et al. 2009) and wintering (Marcus et al. 2000, Smith et al. 2005b, Conover et al. 2007) birds. However, mandated national monitoring of CP33 (USDA 2004, Burger et al. 2006b) indicated regional variation regarding the impacts of this practice (Evans 2012). With a current approximate enrollment of 96,375 ha (68% of acreage cap), the CP33 practice added a conservatively estimated 30,000 coveys to the range-wide autumn population (Evans 2012), contributing substantially to the goals of the NBCI. The NBCI has since undergone significant revision (NBCI 2.0), geographic expansion, and name change (National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative), transitioning from a paper document to now including a spatially explicit and interactive data management and planning tool (the Conservation Planning Tool). NBCI 2.0 uses Biologist Ranking Information to spatially delineate and rank areas 273
of current land uses compatible with managing bobwhite, to estimate current densities within these areas, and to identify major social, economic, and habitat opportunities and constraints. Combined with a standardized monitoring program (currently in development), the Conservation Planning Tool will be used in an adaptive management framework to provide feedback on the effectiveness of current and proposed restoration efforts and to monitor the progress of the NBCI. Furthermore, since the inception of NBCI, bobwhite restoration has been elevated to a priority among many state agencies. Prior to NBCI, only 2 states had quail initiatives; now >18 states have formal quail initiatives. Furthermore, >20 states now leverage Farm Bill dollars toward bobwhite habitat development. Moreover, yearly updates regarding NBCI progress throughout the bobwhite’s range are made available in the NBCI’s yearly Bobwhite Almanac (McKenzie et al. 2012). Bobwhite restoration is inherently a complex mix of people (e.g., conservationists, landowners, state and federal agencies), policy (e.g., Farm Bill practices specifically addressing a national conservation initiative), and money (e.g., financial incentives to offset lost opportunity costs incurred by producers adopting ‘bird-friendly’ conservation practices) and is further confounded by a dynamic landscape embedded in a world of ever-changing social and economic issues. Within this context, range-wide bobwhite restoration requires reduction of governmental policies and subsidies harmful to grassland birds (such as subsidized establishment of aggressive, introduced forages on grazing lands); structured, incremental improvements in conservation delivery and the development of new technologies and financial incentives to encourage adoption of ‘quail-friendly’ practices on private lands. Upland Nesting Waterfowl and Shorebirds in Agriculturally Dominated Landscapes—Winter Wheat Glaciated regions of North and South Dakota (USA) serve as the primary breeding areas for many of North America’s waterfowl and shorebirds (Batt et al. 1989, Skagen and Thompson 2000). Historically, extensive native grasslands and diverse wetlands provided ideal habitat for successful reproduction (Stephens et al. 2005). However, since human settlement the eastern Dakotas have become important agricultural production areas for small grains, oil seeds, and row crops. Ongoing conversion of grassland to cropland and drainage and degradation of wetlands has significantly altered the landscapes in which breeding waterfowl and shorebirds nest (Stephens et al. 2008). The northern pintail (Anas acuta) is a species of special concern because its numbers have declined dramatically and are currently well below population goals established under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Expansion and intensification of agriculture in the Northern Great Plains are thought to be contributing to population decline in northern pintails. In the Northern Great Plains, they initiate nesting before other species, often locating nests in crop stubble. Such fields historically were left idle the year after harvest; however, technological advancements in seed varieties and pest management now enable farmers to grow crops in successive 274
years. Spring cultivation of stubble fields results in catastrophic losses of ground nests in treated fields. Autumn-seeded cereal grains, such as winter wheat, provide undisturbed nesting cover for birds during the breeding season and offer the potential to complement the other available grassland nesting habitats that are available to birds. Devries et al. (2007) documented that winter wheat is an attractive nesting cover for northern pintails and many grassland birds (Martin and Forsyth 2003), and survival of nests in winter wheat fields was greater than in other available habitat types. Thus, targeting winter cereals in landscapes that have high wetland densities and attract high densities of pintails and other wetland-dependent birds has become a focus for Ducks Unlimited. The primary challenges for adoption of autumn-seeded cereals are 1) producers are unfamiliar with cultivation practices and 2) available varieties of winter wheat seed lack winter hardiness. To address these concerns, Ducks Unlimited is providing direct technical assistance to farmers while also investing in collaborative research to improve the cold-hardiness of winter wheat varieties. Incentive payments were also part of the program initially, but evaluations showed that technical expertise provided by agronomists was more attractive than cash incentives. Since Ducks Unlimited initiated its winter cereals program in 1999, winter wheat acreage in North Dakota has increased almost 10-fold from only 24,281 ha in 1999 to 234,718 ha planted in 2009. Ducks Unlimited has recently expanded the winter wheat program in partnership with Bayer Cropscience. A focus of the new partnership with Bayer, the Winter Cereals Sustainability in Action, includes additional extension outreach to increase the acreage of winter wheat planted in the region and expansion of winter wheat breeding programs at universities across the United States and Canada. Research is ongoing to determine whether winter wheat provides landscape-level impacts on duck and shorebird nest survival in addition to the an apparent habitat-type increase in nest survival for nests within winter wheat fields (Devries et al. 2010).
CONCLUSIONS Wildlife conservation in North America has evolved over the past century from an initial focus on establishing protected lands for wildlife (e.g., refuges, parks, management areas, etc.) to placing greater emphasis on wildlife habitat development on private lands. This shift was warranted given the overwhelming preponderance of land in private ownership, increased availability of funding for private lands conservation since passage of the 1985 Farm Bill, and increasing emphasis on wildlife in USDA conservation programs. However, easement-based programs (e.g., Wetland Reserve Program) are costly and continued public acceptance of their funding will likely decline, leaving the future contribution of easement programs to bird conservation tenuous. Furthermore, as global commodity demands increase, many retired lands will likely return to production. Anticipated changes in agricultural policy and reductions in funding for conservation programs, intensification of agricultural uses, and changes in land use will require bird Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2)
conservationists to operate more strategically (i.e., objective setting, planning, implementation, and monitoring linked in an adaptive management framework). Objective Setting and Planning The establishment of clear objectives is a critical first step for strategic habitat conservation. Broad-scale management plans such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 2004), North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002), United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001), and Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (Dimmick et al. 2002) that link population goals to habitat requirements of targeted species and/or species groups provide useful blueprints for habitat conservation. The advancement of bird conservation on private lands requires the integration of bird conservation plans with the establishment of clear objectives and an improved understanding of how management activities undertaken to benefit priority species affect other, non-target species, other natural resources, and ecosystem function. Achievement of bird conservation objectives on private lands is dependent on continued funding for Farm Bill conservation programs. Funding for conservation programs must be adequate not only to incentivize program participation (i.e., offset any opportunity costs incurred by participating producers), but also to support staff needed to provide technical assistance to landowners. Reduction in the administrative burden presently placed on NRCS field staffs, expanded partnerships with state natural resource agencies and non-governmental organizations, and training of field staffs in holistic planning represent opportunities to better serve landowner clients and improve conservation planning and delivery at local level. Finally, program eligibility criteria at the national and state level should be established with awareness of bird conservation priorities. Implementation Conservation measures funded through the Farm Bill have been applied to millions of hectares of cropland, pastureland, and rangeland. Continued funding of Farm Bill conservation programs is essential to retain and expand the conservation benefits achieved to date. Whereas in the past, bird conservationists have tended to focus on USDA conservation programs that took land out of production (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program), going forward, greater emphasis will need to be placed on developing innovative approaches to encourage the adoption of ‘bird-friendly’ practices on agricultural working lands that enhance or minimally impact whole-farm profitability (Peterjohn 2003, Green et al. 2005, Phalan et al. 2011). At their core, innovative solutions to bird conservation issues on private land must address economic motivations that govern practice adoption by landowners. In all of the above case studies, financial incentives and the availability of science-based technical information were critically important to the adoption of ‘bird-friendly’ practices. In most cases, Ciuzio et al. Bird Conservation on Private Land
financial incentives were provided through Farm Bill programs, but in some situations alternative funding sources, market-based solutions, and technical information were sufficient to alter management practices. Additionally, all case studies illustrated the importance of gaining the trust of landowners and forming effective partnerships among landowners, conservation groups, and federal agencies. Inconsistent funding and lack of outreach capacity were major limitations for the adoption of ‘bird-friendly’ practices. Monitoring and Adaptive Management An iterative approach that applies science-based management prescriptions and monitoring to evaluate and improve management actions, culminating in the achievement of conservation objectives, is essential for maintaining or improving wildlife habitats in ever-changing agricultural landscapes. Indeed, application of the best available science and monitoring of bird responses were essential components in all of the above case studies. With the advent of online databases such as eBird, researchers, managers, and landowners can all enter site-specific data into a publically available, spatially explicit database. Monitoring efforts that recognize the expertise of landowners can increase the commitment to broad-scale conservation efforts. In recognition of the importance of strategic conservation, all of NRCS’s Landscape Conservation Initiatives targeting wildlife include an assessment component. Without a strong monitoring component, increased support for innovative conservation efforts will be difficult to defend. Although this paper highlights bird conservation as a goal, there are a suite of ecosystem services that are provided by agricultural producers. For example, many Farm Bill conservation practices address multiple natural resource concerns (e.g., soil erosion, water quality, nutrient run-off, etc.) while also considering critical wildlife habitat. By assigning a market value to services such as carbon sequestration, water conservation, erosion control, and nutrient cycling (Costanza et al. 1997), planners are beginning to understand the full value of conservation measures relative to opportunity costs and are better able to monetize incentives for landowners’ adoption of conservation practices. Although this can potentially be an expensive proposition, estimates of the benefits provided by ecosystem services in protected habitats is approximately 100 times greater than the cost of protection annually (Balmford et al. 2002). Private landowners may have the land base and the desire to effect positive change for bird populations, but be unaware of the need or the best management practices set by bird conservation initiatives. They may also be unfamiliar with the financial incentives available through Farm Bill and other conservation assistance programs. Thus, technical information must be easily accessed and understandable to landowners and those that serve them. Landowners must be engaged as meaningful partners in wildlife conservation; however, these relationships are fragile and require close attention. Whereas non-governmental conservation groups will continue to play a key role in working with landowners, all resource agencies, especially those tasked with Farm Bill 275
program oversight, will need to allocate greater resources to effectively deliver federal conservation programs and practices, which likely will remain the primary vehicle for accomplishing bird conservation on private lands. State fish and wildlife agencies need more biologists knowledgeable about agricultural policy, agronomic practices, and human dimensions to work collaboratively with landowners on implementing conservation programs. However, there is still a broader challenge that will require resource management agencies, conservation groups, and educational institutions to reevaluate how they achieve their conservation goals and work together to provide a consistent and focused conservation message.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is the product of a symposium ‘‘Opportunities and Challenges to Bird Conservation on Private Working Lands’’ (Organizers: D. Hahn and W.L. Hohman) conducted at the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference held in McAllen, Texas, 13–16 February 2008. We thank other symposium participants (D. Hahn, M. Maslonek, T. Present, C. Rustay, and T. Thompson) for thought-provoking discussions on private lands conservation. Funding was provided by the USDA-NIFA Managed Ecosystems Program (grant no. 03-35101-13817) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center (Grassland Birds in Northeastern Haylands). Helpful reviews of the draft manuscript were provided by S. Brady, C. Kowaleski, T. Present, T. Rich, S. Riffell, and C. Rustay. The authors do not have any interest or relationship, financial or otherwise, that might be perceived as influencing our objectivity surrounding the data and ideas presented in this manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED Balmford, A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Trumper, and R. K. Turner. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953. Barbour, P. J., S. W. Martin, and W. Burger. 2007. Estimating economic impact of conservation field borders on farm revenue. Crop Management DOI: 10.1094/CM-2007-0614-01-RS. Batt, B. D. J., M. G. Anderson, C. D. Anderson, and F. D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North American ducks. Pages 204–227 in A. van der Valk, editor. Northern prairie wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, editors. 2001. The U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Second edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA. Burger, L. W., Jr. 2006. Creating wildlife habitat through federal farm programs: an objective-driven approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:994–999. Burger, L. W., Jr., D. McKenzie, R. Thackston, and S. J. DeMaso. 2006a. The role of farm policy in achieving large-scale conservation: bobwhites and buffers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:986–993. Burger, L. W., M. D. Smith, R. Hamrick, B. Palmer, and S. Wellendorf. 2006b. CP33-habitat buffers for upland birds monitoring protocol. Mississippi State University Miscellaneous Publication, Mississippi, USA. Cherney, D. J. R., J. H. Cherney, and R. F. Lucey. 1993. In vitro digestion kinetics and quality of perennial grasses as influenced by forage maturity. Journal of Dairy Science 76:790–797.
276
Conover, R. R., L. W. Burger, Jr., and E. T. Linder. 2007. Winter avian community and sparrow response to field border width. Journal of Wildlife Management 7:1917–1923. Conover, R. R., L. W. Burger, Jr., and E. T. Linder. 2009. Breeding bird response to field border presence and width. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:548–555. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasson, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neil, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. Dahlberg, K. A. 1992. The conservation of biological diversity and U.S. agriculture: goals, institutions, and policies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 42:177–193. Davros, N. M., D. M. Debinski, K. F. Reeder, and W. L. Hohman. 2006. Landscape factors influencing butterfly use of Conservation Reserve Program buffers in the Midwest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:936–943. Devries, J. H., L. M. Armstrong, R. J. MacFarlane, L. Moats, and P. T. Thoroughgood. 2007. Waterfowl nesting in fall-seeded and spring-seeded cropland in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1790– 1797. Devries, J. H., S. O. Rimer, and E. M. Walsh. 2010. Cropland nesting by long-billed curlews in southern Alberta. Prairie Naturalist 42:123–129. Dimmick, R. W., M. J. Gudlin, and D. F. McKenzie. 2002. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina, USA. Evans, K. O. 2012. Multi-scale response of upland birds to targeted agricultural conservation. Dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA. Farrand, D. T., and M. R. Ryan. 2005. Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife conservation in the Midwest. Pages 41–62 in J. B. Haufler, editor. Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000–2005 update. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-02, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2010. The state of food insecurity in the world: addressing food insecurity in protracted crises. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Summit on Food Security, 16–18 Nov 2009, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/ docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2010. Gerard, P. 1995. Agricultural practices, farm policy, and the conservation of biological diversity. Biological Science Report 4. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Springfield, Virginia, USA. Green, R. E., S. J. Cornell, J. P. W. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555. Heard, L. P. 2000. Introduction. Pages 1–4 in W. L. Hohman, and D. J. Halloum, editors. A comprehensive review of Farm Bill contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985–2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, Technical Report USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000. Madison, Mississippi, USA. Hoekstra, J. M., T. M. Boucher, T. H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters 8:23–29. Ivan, J. S., and R. K. Murphy. 2005. What preys on piping plover eggs and chicks? Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:113–119. Johnson, D. H. 2005. Grassland bird use of Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Great Plains. Pages 17–32 in J. B. Haufler, editor. Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000–2005 update. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-02, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Knopf, F. L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. Pages 135–148 in F. B. Samson, and F. L. Knopf, editors. Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, W. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan. Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D.C., USA. Larson, M. A., M. R. Ryan, and R. K. Murphy. 2002. Population viability of piping plovers: effects of predator exclusion. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:361–371.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2)
Marcus, J. F., W. E. Palmer, and P. T. Bromley. 2000. The effects of farm field borders on overwintering sparrow densities. Wilson Bulletin 112:517–523. Martin, P. A., and D. J. Forsyth. 2003. Occurrence and productivity of songbirds in prairie farmland under conventional versus minimum tillage regimes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 96:107–117. McConnell, M. D. 2011. Using precision agriculture technology to evaluate environmental and economic tradeoffs of alternative CP33 enrollments. Thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA. McKenzie, D. F., T. V. Dailey, M. Puckett, and J. G. Doty. 2012. NBCI’s bobwhite almanac, state of the bobwhite 2012. National Bobwhite Technical Committee, Technical Publication, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. Napier, T. L. 1990. The conservation title of the food security act of 1985: an overview. Pages 3–10 in T. L. Napier, editor. Implementing the conservation title of the food security act of 1985. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, USA. North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan 2004. Implementation framework: strengthening the biological foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de MedioAmbiente y Recursos Naturales, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada, Arlington, Virginia, USA, Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel, Mexico. Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe, III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Science Report 28. U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2012. NRCS landscape conservation initiatives. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ national/home/?cid¼stelprdb1042113. Accessed 14 May 2012. Payton, M. A., D. C. Fulton, and D. H. Anderson. 2005. Influence of place attachment and trust on civic action: a study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Society and Natural Resources 18:511–528. Perlut, N. G., A. M. Strong, T. M. Donovan, and N. J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. Ecological Applications 16:2235–2247. Perlut, N. G., A. M. Strong, and T. J. Alexander. 2011. A model for integrating wildlife science and agri-environmental policy in the conservation of declining species. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1657– 1663. Peterjohn, B. G. 2003. Agricultural landscapes: can they support healthy bird populations as well as farm products? Auk 120:14–19. Peterson, T. R., and C. C. Horton. 1995. Rooted in the soil: how understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81:139–166. Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R. E. Green. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291. Plissner, J. H., and S. M. Haig. 2000a. Viability of piping plover (Charadrius melodus) populations. Biological Conservation 92:163–173. Plissner, J. H., and S. M. Haig. 2000b. Status of a broadly distributed endangered species: results and implications of the Second International Piping Plover Census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:129–139. Reeder, K. F., D. M. Debinski, and B. J. Danielson. 2005. Factors affecting butterfly use of filter strips in Midwestern USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109:40–47. Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. In˜igo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O.
Ciuzio et al. Bird Conservation on Private Land
Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. Riddle, J. D., C. E. Moorman, and K. H. Pollock. 2008. The importance of habitat shape and landscape context to northern bobwhite populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1376–1382. Riffell, S. D., D. Scognamillo, and L. W. Burger, Jr., 2008. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern bobwhite and grassland birds. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 146:309–323. Ryan, M. R., B. G. Root, and P. M. Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7:581–585. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2009. Version 3.23.2011. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Skagen S. K., and G. Thompson. 2000. Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes regional shorebird conservation plan. http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/ RegionalShorebird/downloads/NORPLPP2.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2009. Smith, M. D., P. J. Barbour, L. W. Burger, Jr., and S. J. Dinsmore. 2005a. Breeding bird abundance and diversity in agricultural field borders in the black belt prairie of Mississippi. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 59: 43–56. Smith, M. D., P. J. Barbour, L. W. Burger, Jr., and S. J. Dinsmore. 2005b. Density and diversity of overwintering birds in managed field borders in Mississippi. Wilson Bulletin 117:258–269. Sovada, M. A., R. M. Anthony, and B. D. J. Batt. 2001. Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and prairie breeding areas: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:6–15. Stephens, S. E., J. J. Rotella, M. S. Lindberg, M. L. Taper, and J. K. Ringelman. 2005. Duck nest survival in the Missouri Coteau of North Dakota: landscape effects at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Applications 15:2137–2149. Stephens, S. E., J. A. Walker, D. R. Blunck, A. Jayaraman, D. E. Naugle, J. K. Ringelman, and A. J. Smith. 2008. Predicting risk of habitat conversion of native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology 22: 1320–1330. Sugden, L. G., and G. W. Beyersbergen. 1984. Farming intensity on waterfowl breeding grounds in Saskatchewan parklands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:22–26. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2004. Practice CP33 habitat buffers for upland wildlife. Farm Service Agency, Notice CRP-479, Washington, D.C., USA. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2007. Census of agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. Accessed 10 Sep 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2008. 2008 Farm Bill side-byside. http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Titles/TitleIIConservation. htm. Accessed 14 May 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. U.S. Geological Service. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: final report of the National Ecological Assessment Team. http://www.fws.gov/science/doc/SHC_FinalRpt.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2009. Wilkins, R. N., D. Wolfe, L. S. Campbell, and S. Baggett. 2009. Development of recovery credit systems as policy innovation for threatened and endangered species. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 73:233–244.
Associate Editor: Donaghy Cannon.
277
