10.5061/DRYAD.ZPC866T8K
Gigliotti, Franco
0000-0001-7495-0330
University of Connecticut
Martin, Emily
Colorado State University
Ferguson, Paige
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Synthesis of Red-cockaded Woodpecker management strategies and suggestions
for regional specificity in future management
Dryad
dataset
2021
FOS: Biological sciences
2021-06-14T00:00:00Z
2021-06-14T00:00:00Z
en
85142 bytes
3
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
The Red-cockaded Woodpecker ( Dryobates borealis , RCW) was listed under
the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1973 due to significant population
declines resulting from habitat loss and fragmentation, and the species
has been intensively managed since then. We reviewed management strategies
commonly used to conserve the RCW, emphasizing studies conducted after
publication of the most recent Recovery Plan in 2003, to evaluate the
efficacy of each strategy across the RCW’s range and identify demographic
and environmental factors that influence the success of each strategy. Of
the management strategies reviewed, outcomes from prescribed fire vary the
most across the RCW’s range because prescribed fire is influenced by the
site’s vegetation, abiotic conditions, and land use history. The abundance
of cavity kleptoparasites varies across sites, but kleptoparasite control
is only a high priority in small RCW populations. The long-term
effectiveness of artificial cavities and translocations, which are highly
effective across the RCW’s range in the short-term, requires suitable
habitat, which is strongly influenced by prescribed fire. Regional
variation in RCW management may be needed because RCW populations that are
not in archetypical suitable habitat (sensu Recovery Plan Standards) may
benefit from management methods that are not suitable for large RCW
populations in archetypical habitats (e.g. installing many cavity
restrictor plates and cavity inserts). RCW management strategies have been
studied most in the South Central Plains and Southeastern Plains
ecoregions, and more research in other ecoregions would be valuable. We
encourage consideration of how management varies according to population
demographics and site characteristics as opposed to a “one-size fits all”
management approach for the RCW, which inhabits broad geographic ranges
and sites of varying productivity and will continue to rely on management
efforts after downlisting or delisting from the Endangered Species Act.
We used the Web of Science and Scopus research engines to identify studies
that examined (1) the influence of different management strategies on RCW
demographics and population growth, (2) the ecological factors that affect
RCW abundance at local and regional scales, or (3) the relative importance
of demographic vs. environmental processes when considering the size or
location (i.e. ecoregion and environmental conditions) of a population.
Specifically, we searched topics and titles of studies using the phrase
‘Red-cockaded Woodpecker’ AND one of the following terms: ‘artificial
cavity’, ‘budding’, ‘cavity tree selection’, ‘community’, ‘decision
making’, ‘decline’, ‘demographic modeling’, ‘depredation’, ‘dispersal’,
‘environment’, ‘forage’, ‘genetic’, ‘habitat’, ‘hurricane’, ‘management’,
‘mortality’, ‘nest’, ‘nest success’, ‘population’, ‘prescribed fire’,
‘reproduction’, ‘survival’, ‘translocation’, or ‘vegetation’. We accessed
Web of Science and Scopus intermittently from June 2016 to April 2021. We
included studies we found through our search if they tested management
strategies or investigated mechanisms that impact RCW population growth.
We located additional peer reviewed studies, proceedings from seminars,
and book chapters using citations from the studies we found using the
research engines or through recommendations from experts in RCW
management. For each source, we recorded the study location, sample size,
statistical tests, and key results, including measurements (e.g., p-value,
effect size) that reflected the effectiveness of a management strategy or
indicated how factors influenced RCW population growth. Since our goal was
to evaluate the response of RCW populations to management after the most
recent Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, many of the studies we cite
were conducted and published after the publication of the Recovery Plan in
2003. However, we also cite earlier studies to provide context and
describe temporal trends in RCW populations. In total, we found 120
publications that met our search requirements.
Rows containing N/A values in the Management Section or Deemed Effective
columns indicate the lack of additional management approaches tested in
the focal study. Rows containing NULL values in the Management Section,
Deemed Effective, and Population Size columns indicate that the focal
study was not a management focused study, and therefore, these studies
were not used to generate Figure 1 presented in the text. However,
non-management driven studies were used to generate Figure 2 in the text,
along with the management driven studies used to generate Figure 1. Rows
containing N/A values in the Ecoregion column indicate that the
publication was not a location-based study. Rows containing N/A values in
the Population Size column indicate that the cited study was a computer
simulation that varied the size of the simulated population.